Patient Participation Forum

The PPF discussed membership and engagement. The group remains without a patient chair. Members were encouraged to help identify additional patients who may wish to join and potentially take on a chairing role.

Patients can express interest through the practice website or by leaving an email address with staff. A welcome pack is then provided. It was noted that some previous expressions of interest may not have resulted in meeting invitations, so the process for recording contact details and issuing invitations should be checked.

WhatsApp Communications

A patient WhatsApp group was created with Hillyfields. Patients who wish to join can provide their mobile number to the organiser so they can be added.

NHS App, Equality and Inclusivity, Patient Data/FDP and AI Virtual Receptionist

The PPF raised concerns about equality and inclusivity for patients who are unable to use, or do not feel confident using, digital services. The practice confirmed that patients can attend in person and receive assistance with appointments, queries and completion of the triage form. Reception and care-navigation staff should support patients who cannot or do not wish to use the digital route.

A concern was discussed regarding a patient who was unable to use the NHS App and had been asked to return home and telephone the practice. The importance of practical support at reception, rather than simply directing patients away, was emphasised. Queue management and use of a second/backup receptionist were also discussed.

The practice reported that approximately 74% of patients are now registered for the NHS App. Digital Champions are available to support patients, and step-by-step guidance is displayed in waiting areas.

The PPF also discussed the Palantir Plan (NHS Federated Data Platform (FDP). The practice confirmed that it is not currently using the NHS FDP and is not currently sending practice patient data to, or storing it on, the platform. Future national arrangements would be determined nationally, and any material change would require appropriate governance and patient information.

• Patient Data Sharing and Interoperability: The group examined how patient information is currently shared, the uncertainty around future national platforms and the implications for care delivered by clinicians from different practices.
• Current Data Position: The practice stated that patient data within Southeast London is not currently held on or shared through the proposed national platform. Future arrangements are controlled nationally rather than by an individual practice, so the practice cannot yet confirm what the platform will contain.
• Consent And Governance: The group asked whether patients would have an opt-in or opt-out choice if data sharing changes. The response was that any significant national change would require practice governance arrangements to be reviewed, with patients receiving the relevant options and information through an established process.
• Secondary Data Use: The practice routinely shares non-identifiable, aggregated information, such as the number of patients over 65 with a particular diagnosis, for service planning and research related purposes. The concern raised was about future use of more identifiable data; the response was that such arrangements would be governed nationally and handled through secure environments.
• Cross Practice Access: A patient example was given in which a clinician from another practice working within a hub could not see the patient’s medical information. This illustrated the practical risk of incomplete information when systems or data-sharing arrangements do not provide access across practices.

Virtual Receptionist Pilot

The group discussed a proposed optional AI-supported virtual receptionist that would collect triage information, with members weighing potential speed and consistency benefits against accessibility and communication difficulties.

• Optional AI Use: The proposed system would act like a virtual receptionist by asking patients questions and collecting triage information. Patients would not be required to use it and could choose to speak with a human Care Navigator instead.
• Potential Benefits: The system may allow patients to provide symptoms and other information without waiting on the telephone, and it could populate information for the practice more quickly. The service was described as NHS-approved, although the practice would clarify the relevant service and implementation arrangements.
• Patient Usability: Members questioned why a patient would choose the AI option over a queue. Concerns included repeated questions when the system does not understand an answer, the need to rephrase complex explanations and the time required to type information into a logic-based system. The group therefore emphasised that patients should have a clear choice of entry point.

GP National Survey – Results, Action Plan and Feedback

The PPF discussed the GP National Survey results and the action plan. 829 patients were sent out the survey by an independent company on behalf of NHS England and received approximately 184 responses. Members questioned the representativeness of the response rate. The practice acknowledged that 184 responses cannot be considered representative of the approximately 50,000-patient population.

Improvement was reported across all areas compared with the previous survey. Overall experience increased from 55% to 66%; website access increased from 26% to 48%; experience of contacting the practice increased from 40% to 51%; and reception helpfulness increased from 65% to 71%

Telephone access remained the lowest-scoring area at 28%. The new telephone system includes a queue-position facility. The practice is reviewing waiting times, considering shortening the introductory message and investigating technical issues.

Customer-care training is ongoing. A weekly hour is allocated for call-centre/care-navigation learning, and reception staff review three calls each week using a structured record. Managers review the assessments as part of development and appraisal.

The full GP National Survey action plan is more detailed than the summary shared with the PPF and is being worked through by the management team. The PPF was invited to identify specific actions or recommendations. The next survey period is expected to run from January to March, when PPF support with promotion and participation will be particularly valuable.

Complaints – Data and Themes

The meeting reviewed the complaints data, with 183 new complaints recorded across the categories presented since 01 April 2026, The main themes were clinical treatment/errors (30), communications (29), appointment obtaining including 0844 numbers (24), prescription issues (15), repeat prescription process (14), inaccurate/incorrect records (9), care planning (8), delay/failure to refer (8), refusal to allow access to records (7), and staff attitude/behaviour/values (16).

The data reinforces recurring patient concerns around access, communication, prescriptions and staff experience. These themes should continue to inform service improvement and PPF discussion. To note not all complaints are upheld and TLCP has a very robust system of capturing every single concern and addressing it.

Patient Feedback – Friends and Family Test (FFT)

FFT feedback for June to August 2026 remained generally positive. Patients consistently praised clinical care and described clinicians and staff as kind, respectful, professional, attentive and helpful.

June 2026

• Responses: 145
• Would recommend: 87%
• Main themes: Positive clinical care and staff; concerns about appointments, waiting times, telephone access and reception/triage.

July 2026

• Responses: 148
• Would recommend: 84%
• Main themes: Positive consultations and staff; concerns about availability, delays, telephone/online access, cancellations and reception communication.

August 2026

• Responses: 148
• Would recommend: 84%
• Main themes: Positive clinical care and staff; concerns about cancellations/rebooking, long waits, medication/referral issues and reception communication.

Across the three months, the recommendation score remained between 84% and 87%. The key improvement themes were appointment access, waiting times, telephone/online access and triage, reception communication/customer service, cancelled or rebooked appointments, and clear/timely communication about referrals and prescriptions.