GP quality in Coventry: what is important to local people and recommendations for action

Download (PDF 735KB)

Summary of report content

GP services are frequently the subject of national policy initiatives because of their central function in the health system. It is important to Healthwatch that the views of local people are a driver in future development of local GP services

Our aims in undertaking this work were:

  • To support the work of the Local Health and Wellbeing Board task group on primary care
  • To enable the views of local people to influence the way forward
  • To help define a bench mark for good quality GP services in the City

We asked  local people what is important to them when they are using GP services via their GP practice or the Coventry Walk in Centre. We ran two qualitative surveys and four focus groups. Meetings were also held with a sample of GP practice managers and visits made to local the Walk in Centre.  We gathered the views of 277 people.

Our work identified some trends in what people wanted and detail about what people thought made a good quality GP service/experience.

We made 8 recommendations about customer focused training for reception staff; written information; clarifying to the public the role of the Walk In Centre; connecting IT systems; developing patient engagement; and promoting complaints advocacy via GP practices.

Healthwatch presented this report to the multi-agency Primary Care Task Group on 27 November 2014 and further discussion was held at the group’s meeting on 22 January 2015. 

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
GP quality in Coventry: what is important to local people and recommendations for action
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Coventry
Date of publication 
Wednesday, 4 February, 2015
Date evidence capture began 
Wednesday, 30 April, 2014
Date evidence capture finished 
Tuesday, 30 September, 2014
Type of report 
Key themes 
Booking appointments
Complaints procedure
Information providing
Integration of services
Quality of care
Staff training

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
Primary research method used 
Engagement event
Focus group
How was the information collected? 
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
Urgent care services

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
All people 18 and over
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative'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? 
Not applicable
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
Network related impact

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.