Enter and view: Meon Surgery

This Healthwatch Warwickshire Enter and View report summarises a visit to Meon Medical Centre in Lower Quinton on 14 September 2015. The practice served approximately 3,800 patients and provided a range of services including chronic disease clinics, elderly care, child health services, smoking cessation support and a home medication delivery service. 

Overall, the report found that patients were highly satisfied with the quality of care, treatment and service provided by the practice. Twenty-four patients completed questionnaires, with most rating the surgery, its doctors, nurses and reception staff as good. Many patients described the service as professional, compassionate and patient-centred. 

The surgery premises were observed to be modern, clean, accessible and well maintained. The building was purpose-built, with automatic doors, wheelchair access, hearing loop provision, a child-friendly waiting area, hand sanitisers, clear signage and ample parking, including a drop-off point close to the entrance.

Patients generally rated GPs and nurses very positively, frequently describing clinicians as skilled, professional and caring. Most respondents also felt involved in decisions about their care and valued the time taken by clinicians to discuss health concerns and treatment options. 

The main area of concern was the surgery's telephone triage and appointment system. While many patients acknowledged that the system helped direct people to the most appropriate service, some found it confusing or frustrating. Patients reported having to answer questions from multiple staff members, wait for call-backs from nurses, and sometimes experiencing delays before seeing a GP. Some respondents also reported difficulty getting through by telephone during busy periods. 

Opening hours were generally viewed favourably, although some patients suggested that additional evening or Saturday appointments would be beneficial for people in full-time employment.

Access to the surgery received very positive ratings, particularly because of the good parking provision and convenient location. Cleanliness standards were also highly regarded by respondents.

Feedback on appointment punctuality was more mixed. Many patients reported waiting beyond their appointment times, sometimes by fifteen minutes or longer. However, several respondents acknowledged that delays were often caused by clinicians taking sufficient time with patients who had complex needs and generally accepted this as part of providing good care. 

The report highlighted the surgery's 75+ Group as an example of good practice. The initiative provided support and social opportunities for older and potentially isolated patients, including information services and community activities. Healthwatch considered this an important contribution to preventative care and reducing social isolation. 

Healthwatch recommended that the surgery continue developing its successful 75+ programme, review concerns raised about the triage system, and implement clear communication processes to keep patients informed when appointments are running late.

In its response, the practice stated that the 75+ programme was expanding, that an audit of the triage system was underway with patient involvement, and that efforts had been made to increase appointment availability. The surgery also confirmed that staff would continue informing patients about delays and balancing appointment schedules with the need to provide thorough care.