Enter and view: Village Surgery

Healthwatch Liverpool conducted an unannounced Enter and View visit to The Village Surgery in Garston on 11 July 2013. The practice was an independent GP surgery serving approximately 6,000 patients and employed three GPs, an advanced nurse practitioner, two practice nurses and seven reception and administrative staff. The visit was undertaken to gather information about patient experiences and verify service user feedback.

Overall, the report found that patients were satisfied with the quality of care provided and that staff were regarded as friendly, welcoming and professional. Healthwatch rated staff attitude as good, with patients consistently praising the helpfulness and politeness of reception staff and the quality of care provided by GPs. 

Patients reported that obtaining appointments could sometimes be frustrating because telephone lines were often busy, particularly during peak periods. However, patients also stated that once they got through, they were generally guaranteed an appointment on the same day. The practice offered a range of appointment options, including face-to-face consultations, telephone consultations and access to a duty doctor. It also provided extended access through early morning appointments on Mondays and Tuesdays and late evening opening on Mondays.

Healthwatch found that appointment punctuality was generally good and was not considered a significant issue by patients. Delays occasionally occurred due to late arrivals or the complexity of consultations, but patients appeared understanding of these circumstances. 

The surgery offered both reception-based and electronic self-check-in systems. Patients who commented on the electronic check-in process found it easy and convenient to use. However, Healthwatch raised concerns that the location of the electronic check-in terminal might compromise patient confidentiality because it was highly visible to others in the waiting area.

The report identified accessibility of information as the weakest area assessed. Healthwatch found that health information and promotional materials were limited and difficult to locate. Noticeboards and information displays were not prominent, and some materials were positioned behind pillars or in less visible areas. The team noted that responsibility for much of the building layout rested with the organisation managing the premises rather than the surgery itself. 

The surgery was located within a building shared with other healthcare services. While the waiting area was described as pleasant and clean, patients sometimes found it confusing because different practices shared reception and waiting facilities. Some patients could be unsure whether they were in the correct queue or waiting area, particularly when patients from other practices were called before them.

Patient feedback highlighted several strengths. Patients described staff and GPs as excellent, praised the repeat prescription service, and valued having a range of healthcare services available within the same building. The main complaint related to difficulties getting through on the telephone to book appointments.

The GP interviewed during the visit highlighted strong team morale, low staff turnover and a shared commitment to providing high-quality patient care as key strengths of the practice. The primary issue identified by the practice itself was the lack of air conditioning, which could make conditions uncomfortable for both patients and staff during warmer weather.

Healthwatch did not make any specific recommendations directed at the surgery's clinical services. However, it recommended that concerns relating to the shared premises be raised with the building management. These included improving signage to consulting rooms and toilets, providing clearer identification of different practices and waiting areas, improving access to patient information and health promotion materials, and reducing confusion within shared reception areas. 

No safeguarding concerns were identified during the visit.