Sina Health Centre

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

The responsive key question remains rated as good. One quality statement, Equity in Access, was included in this assessment. The practice used people’s feedback and other evidence to improve access for people. Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The practice identified and allocated resources as required to improve inequalities and support equity of access. The practice continued to monitor and make improvements.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Patients could book appointments by telephone, online, and in person by visiting the practice. Appointments were available face to face, by telephone, or as a home visit. Same day appointments were available, and patients could book routine appointments up to 2 weeks in advance. Appointments with GPs were available Monday and Tuesday 8am to 6.30pm, Wednesday and Friday 8am to 6pm and Thursday’s 8am to 1pm. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact an external contract provider or 111. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff. For example a; nurse, health care assistant, pharmacist, mental health practitioner, physiotherapist, paramedic and social prescriber. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and at the weekend through an arrangement with other local GP practices. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other appropriate services and were supported by a duty doctor.

The practice created an action plan in response to the annual National GP Patient Survey results. Staff explained the arrangements to allow people in vulnerable circumstances to register easily with the practice, including homeless people and Travellers. We spoke with members of staff in leadership and management roles. It was clear that improving access and patient experience was a priority for the practice and feedback had led the service to review performance and identify improvements. The leadership team explained they were in the process gathering feedback and were reviewing their telephone system for further improvements.

In the 2023, National GP Patient Survey data was in line with national averages for 3 out of 4 outcomes relating to access. Patients reported satisfaction in how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone, the overall experience of making an appointment and with the appointment they were offered. However, data for those who were very satisfied or fairly satisfied with their GP practice appointment times was below average. The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as the GP patient survey, friends and family tests and complaints. Patient feedback gathered by the practice was more positive, but this cannot be compared directly to the National GP Patient Survey. All non-clinical staff were trained in care navigation and had links with local services for signposting. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. Patients had access to an interpretation service for patients whom English language was not their first language or had other communication needs. The practice was accessible to patients with mobility needs and feedback from staff and leaders demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.