Herne Hill Group Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed a total of 7 quality statements from this key question. Our rating for this key question is good. We found people could access care that was centred around their needs. The provider understood the needs of the population and tailored the service to meet these needs. Complaints were investigated fully, and patients were told the outcome of their complaints.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service was delivering patient centred care. In the 2024 national GP patient survey, patients were asked if they felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment. 94% of patients reported that they were. This is higher than both the national average (90%) and the local integrated care board (ICB) area (89%).

Leaders at the service told us that they had participated in the GP Improvement Programme with a view to improving feedback from the 2023 survey. The service was also involved in a number of local social prescribing schemes, allowing patients to better manage issue relating to their personal circumstances generally, and their care. Leaders at the service understood the needs of its population and tailored services in response to those needs.

Leaders at the service told us the population utilising the practice was diverse, and they detailed specific populations in the local area and support that was in place to assist them in accessing care. This included translation services for a significant population who did not speak English as a first language, and named staff to undertake home visits, or to undertake reviews of patients with learning disabilities.

As part of our assessment, we asked the local commissioning body for feedback about the practice. They told us they had no concerns in relation to how care was provided, integrity of the service or continuity of care.

The service had a system in place that alerted staff to any specific safety or clinical needs of a person using the service, for example there were alerts about a person being on the end-of-life pathway. The service had systems and protocols to determine mental capacity, and involved the patient and/or their family as required, and provided examples of how this policy had been implemented. Leaders at the service detailed updated processes that had been put in place since the last CQC assessment to support managing coming into and going from the practice to better co-ordinate patient care.

As part of this assessment, we spoke to four members of the patient participation group (PPG) at the practice. They told us the PPG group met every month, and on a quarterly basis they would hold open meetings at a local hall, which was had been attended by approximately 100 patients. They told us that, generally, the service was very open with them, and shared information with the patient group. However, they provided differing opinions as to the relevant engagement of the provider, with some saying that they engaged fully, and others saying that there was insufficient engagement. On the basis of the different feedback, an overall conclusion for the quality of engagement with patients cannot be drawn.

Leaders at the service said they made changes to its ways of work through both informal feedback from patients, and from complaints and incidents. They told us the practice population was diverse, and that as such, single methods of communication were not effective, and that efforts had been made to reach a broad range of groups.

The service had detailed policies and procedures regarding what information should be shared with patients to best meet their needs. The service had dedicated leads for specific areas of care where patients might require extra information and support, for example those patients who were housebound.

The service listened to and involved patients, In the 2024 national GP patient survey, patients were asked if they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. 96% of patients reported that they were. This is higher than both the national average (91%) and the local integrated care board (ICB) area (90%).

Leaders at the service described how they ensured complaints were managed with learning in mind, and that complaints were discussed at team meetings, and more generically at PPG meetings in order that they could demonstrate where changes had been made.

Information about how to make a complaint or raise concerns was available and it was easy to do. Staff treated patients who made complaints compassionately. The complaint policy and procedures were in line with recognised guidance. We reviewed a sample of the complaints received by the service and found that all were satisfactorily handled in a timely way. Responses to patients were clearly phrased in a person-centred way. Where required, responses to patients contained apologies, and details of any changes that had been implemented in light of the complaint. Responses also contained details of the health service ombudsman, should the patient wish to escalate the complaint, and local advocacy services.

Patients reported that access was significantly better than in an average practice In the 2024 national GP patient survey, patients were asked if they found it easy to contact the practice on the telephone. 75% of patients reported that they were. This is significantly higher than both the national average (50%) and the local integrated care board (ICB) area (54%). Patients were also asked if it was easy to contact the practice through the website. 54% of patients reported that they were. This is again significantly higher than both the national average (48%) and the local integrated care board (ICB) area (44%).

Leaders told us that they had made changes to the way the service was delivered to ensure all patients had equal access to care. For example the practice had a nurse practitioner whose sole responsibility was to provide care for housebound patients. The practice also provided a specific clinic for those patients who had multiple conditions in order that they could all be managed in a single appointment. They had been involved in specific initiatives to provide both better continuity of care, and availability of staff to take calls from patients. The 2024 patient survey demonstrated a significant improvement in this area.

We did not have any concerns about the processes that supported equity of access.

We had no concerns regarding people’s experience regarding equity in experience and outcomes. There are no measurables in the national patient survey that are specific to this quality statement.

Leaders at the practice told us both the appointments system and care delivery at the practice was designed to provide a positive experience for all patients. They told us the service had put a range of further measures in place to support patients who might otherwise not experience equal experience and outcomes. This included a dedicated nurse practitioner who provided care to housebound patients.

We reviewed processes that were in place to support equity and experience of patients, and found no concerns.

We had no concerns around people’s experience regarding equity in planning for their future. There are no measurables in the national patient survey that are specific to this quality statement.

Leaders detailed that there were clear processes and procedures in place to support patients’ decisions about the future, including a clear do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) process. They told us patient choice was at the core of how care was delivered.

We reviewed processes that were in place to support patients in making plans for the future, and found no concerns.