Enter and View: Leigh Family Practice

Download (PDF 239KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Wigan and Leigh undertook Enter and View visits to three sites providing care to patients registered with Leigh Family Practice. They wanted to capture the experiences of patients, carers/family members and staff at the three sites.

They found that more than two-thirds of patients and carers/family members rated Leigh Family Practice as good, very good or excellent; similar proportions felt that they had enough time during appointments to speak with the GP/nurse/clinician, however, some did feel that they did not always have enough time and felt slightly rushed on occasions; nearly all rated the staff overall as good, very good or excellent. Those who felt that the practice was average or poor, felt it was difficult to get appointments, there was a lack of accessible appointment outside working hours and turnaround on prescription requests were slow.

The report made six recommendations about appointments system, lack of continuity of care, accessible hours, better turnaround times for prescription requests and risk assessment of building and facilities. The report contains a response from the providers to each of the recommendations.  

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Enter and View: Leigh Family Practice
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Wigan
Date of publication 
Monday, 20 January, 2020
Date evidence capture began 
Thursday, 26 September, 2019
Date evidence capture finished 
Wednesday, 23 October, 2019
Type of report 
Enter and view
Key themes 
Access
Booking appointments
Building and facilities
Car parking access
Cleanliness hygiene and infection control
Communication between staff and patients
Continuity of care
Information providing
Prescription
Quality of appointment
Quality of treatment
Referrals
Staff attitudes
Waiting time to be seen once arrived at appointment
Healthwatch reference number 
Rep-5234

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
No
What type of organisation requested the work 
N/A
If this work has been done in partnership, who is the partner? 
None
Primary research method used 
Observation
Survey
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 
Announced

Details of health and care services included in the report

Primary care services 
GP practice

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
68
Age group 
All people 18 and over
Gender 
Not known
Ethnicity 
Not known
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
No
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Yes
Does the information include staff's views? 
Yes
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
All care professionals
Service manager
Does the information include other people's views? 
No
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 
Mixed

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Yes
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Yes action has been taken or promised
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Yes
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
No
What type of impact was determined? 
Implied Impact
Tangible Impact (cost related)
Tangible impact (not cost related)

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
 
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
 
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.