Enter and view - Red Roofs Surgery, Nuneaton

Download (PDF 276KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch Warwickshire did an announced Enter and View to Red Roofs Surgery, a purpose-built building, on 20th April 2015. There was visible signage from the main road to the practice, which had a car park, with disabled parking bays, available for the patients. The internal of the surgery was clean and spacious. The Healthwatch team found the surgery didn’t meet all their observational criteria. There was not much privacy at reception for the patients, and there was no efficient way to inform the patients of waiting times and delays. There were no toys/books available for children and there wasn’t information for the patients in other formats. The questionnaire asked the patients attending the surgery about appointments, access, parking, signage, staff attitudes, cleanliness and the quality of care amongst other things. 9 respondents found the appointment booking system to be poor while 8 out of 30 found the punctuality of the appointments ‘poor’, “Always waiting even with a young baby.” “My wife wasn’t told her appointment was with the duty doctor until she had made it. She should have been told first." The report made two recommendations; for the surgery to look into the concerns raised by the patients in respect of the appointment booking system, and informing patients on the day of any delays which may impact their appointment. The surgery responded saying they have actively promoted the use of on line booking and they have two TV screens running in house messages and national/local Health campaigns, which can also be used for patient calling. Unfortunately the hard drive that supports them failed and was away being repaired during the visit. The surgery accepted that the waiting areas could be more child friendly, but the toys often migrate to rooms or out of the surgery.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Enter and view - Red Roofs Surgery, Nuneaton
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Warwickshire
Date of publication 
Monday, 11 May, 2015
Date evidence capture began 
Monday, 20 April, 2015
Date evidence capture finished 
Monday, 20 April, 2015
Healthwatch reference number 

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
Primary research method used 
How was the information collected? 
Visit to provider
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

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 
Age group 
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Not known
Does the information include staff's views? 
Does the information include other people's views? 
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Yes action has been taken or promised
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
What type of impact was determined? 
Implied Impact
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.