Clifton Medical Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

In the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey, 86% of respondents said they felt their needs were met during their last appointment, which was just below the local average of 88%, and the national average of 90%. A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and were taking action to develop services in response to those needs. There were regular meetings held with community services for continuity of care, support and treatment. Through the Primary Care Network (PCN), the practice staff were able to offer people access to other services such as social prescribing, physio and mental health to support their overall health and wellbeing.

The practice website provided useful information on health awareness and promotion; however, this information could not be shown in different languages. Information and resources were available for people to support during appointments. For example, there were arrangements in place for people who need translation services or who may be digitally excluded. Clinical records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and that information about people that collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person or via the practice website. There was a system for recording and responding to complaints and learning was reviewed with staff to identify themes and trends to implement improvements to the quality of services provided.

However, on reviewing a number of complaints we found they were not always managed in accordance with the practice’s policy. For example, one complaint we viewed lacked clarity on the actions taken by the practice to address the issue raised and did not include information on escalation options if the complainant remained dissatisfied. This was discussed with the provider during our assessment, who acknowledged the shortfall and committed to strengthening the complaints process.

People could usually access services when they needed to. For example, online appointments, telephone appointment and request for home visits. Physical premises and equipment were accessible, and people were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. Clinicians were available to see people for all types of appointment requests including urgent appointments. There was a daily on call GP to triage urgent requests for appointments.

The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources and used this to drive improvements. We found that the provider received below average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to access. For example, 21% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone (compared to 48% nationally and 53% locally), 49% of respondents (compared to 67% nationally and 61% locally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. 24% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App (compared to 49% nationally and 46% locally) and 31% of respondents were positive about their experience of contacting the practice (compared to 70% nationally and 64% locally). 61% of patients knew what the next step would be after contacting the service which was below the national average of 83% and 91% knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting the service which was slightly below the national average of 93%. CQC did not speak to patients on the day of the assessment.

The practice acknowledged patient difficulties in access and had conducted their own patient survey in April and May 2025, followed by an action plan aimed at improving access. Results from their own in-house survey carried out found that 37% of patients rated the practice good or excellent in getting through on the phone, 76% found the choice of appointment as excellent or good, 52% felt their overall experience of making an appointment was excellent or good and 76% rated their overall experience of the surgery as good or very good. The provider’s Friends and Family feedback was in line with the National GP Patient Survey results. The practice was continuing to make improvements and to review their action plan again in December 2025.

At the time of assessment, a total triage system had been introduced and had been in place for 2 weeks. Although still in its early stages, the practice anticipated that the transition to a total triage model would have a positive impact in reducing the telephone wait times. Staff had already observed a reduction in incoming call volume following its implementation. We reviewed the appointment system and found there were 2 GP appointments available on the day, as well as 2 urgent appointments.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place and access to interpreters was available.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

The practice had a patient participation group (PPG). We spoke to a member who told us staff treated them equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.