- GP practice
Dr Jude's Practice - Riverside & Picton
Assessment report published 29 July 2026
Contents
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
Responsive
At our last inspection we rated this question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. We assessed all quality statements within this key question. Information was provided in ways people could understand, enabling them to make informed decisions about their care. Staff demonstrated communication skills that reflected the diverse needs of the practice population throughout the assessment. People knew how to raise concerns or provide feedback, and the practice listened, responded appropriately and used feedback to improve services. The practice promoted equitable access to care and took steps to reduce discrimination and address health inequalities through staff training, learning and continuous service improvement.
We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last inspection, we rated this key question as requires improvement because complaints were not managed appropriately. Sufficient improvements had been made, and the rating is now 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.
Person-centred Care
We found staff placed people at the centre of their care and adapted the support they provided to meet individual needs. Staff described how they used every opportunity to promote people's health and wellbeing through opportunistic checks, treatment and education, helping people access the care they needed at the right time.
We spoke with a GP who told us they felt well supported by their peers and colleagues, enabling them to seek advice and discuss patients where needed. We also spoke with a practice nurse who provided clear examples of tailoring care to the individual. This included ensuring patients were able to speak for themselves and make informed decisions about their care wherever possible, while providing additional support when needed. Throughout the assessment, staff consistently demonstrated a flexible and responsive approach to meeting people's individual needs.
Care provision, Integration and continuity
We found the practice understood the needs of its patient population and had adapted its services to meet the needs of the local community. Staff recognised the challenges associated with caring for a diverse and transient population and had developed services to improve access and continuity of care. This included offering telephone consultations, Saturday morning appointments and employing staff who, between them, spoke more than 12 different languages to help reduce communication barriers. The practice worked well with other health and social care providers to support people to receive coordinated care. Staff described positive working relationships with community healthcare services and demonstrated effective communication and referral processes. There were established arrangements for working with the PCN and other partner organisations to support ongoing improvements in areas such as childhood immunisations and cervical screening uptake. Staff demonstrated a proactive approach to maintaining continuity of care. Effective call and recall systems were in place, electronic patient alerts were acted upon, and staff used opportunistic consultations to provide health promotion, monitoring and treatment wherever appropriate. We also saw examples of care being tailored to meet individual needs, including supporting people with a learning disability and ensuring patients were able to be involved in decisions about their own care.
Providing Information
The practice provided patients with a good range of information to support them in making decisions about their care and treatment. Whilst staff understood the needs of their diverse and transient patient population and had taken steps to reduce barriers we found that written information available within the practice was only provided in English. This included signs directing patients to translation and communication support services. We discussed this with the practice and suggested they consider making key patient information available in the main languages spoken by their registered population, for example by providing information folders or leaflets in reception. We also found there was no language translation option on the practice website. We raised this during the assessment, and the practice took immediate action to initiate this. This demonstrated a willingness to listen to feedback and make improvements where opportunities were identified.
Listening to and involving people
Information was available in the practice and on the website to help people understand how to provide feedback, raise concerns or make a complaint. Reception staff told us they regularly dealt with concerns at the first point of contact and tried to resolve issues before they escalated. Where formal complaints were received, the practice manager handled these. Staff had completed complaints training, and we saw complaints and compliments were reviewed to identify themes, share learning and make improvements where appropriate. The practice also gathered feedback through the NHS Friends and Family Test and in-house patient surveys. However, we found that Friends and Family Test information was not routinely analysed to identify trends or opportunities for improvement and results were not displayed on the practice website. We discussed these opportunities for improvement with staff and leaders during the assessment. They were receptive to the feedback and told us they would take action to address these areas. We also saw evidence of positive feedback and compliments received from patients, reflecting the care and service provided by the practice.
Equity in access
The practice understood its responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard and used patient records to alert staff to communication or health-related needs. Longer appointments were available for people requiring an interpreter and for those with complex long-term conditions.
The practice had systems in place to help people access care when they needed it. Appointments were triaged according to clinical need and urgency, with same-day appointments available where required. Leaders told us they regularly monitored access and made changes in response to patient feedback.However, the National GP Patient Survey showed patients were less positive about access than local and national averages. For example, 15% of respondents said they usually saw or spoke to their preferred healthcare professional when they wanted to, compared with 39% locally and 40% nationally. In addition, 29% found it easy to get through to the practice by telephone, compared with 52% locally and 53% nationally, and 63% described their overall experience of the practice as good, compared with 78% locally and 69% nationally.The practice told us these results did not reflect the feedback they received from patients. They showed us positive feedback from the Friends and Family Test, together with numerous compliments, thank you cards and gifts from patients. We also found staff were committed to improving access and had adapted services to meet the needs of their diverse patient population.Equity in experiences and outcomes
The practice understood the needs of its diverse and transient patient population and had taken steps to reduce barriers to accessing care. Staff recognised that some groups required additional support and adapted the service to meet individual needs. The additional 12 different languages spoken by staff helped improve communication with patients. We saw that patient records identified communication needs, and longer appointments were available for people with physical or learning disabilities, and those with complex long-term conditions.
Staff took a proactive approach to reducing health inequalities. They used effective call and recall systems, acted on patient alerts and made use of opportunistic consultations to promote screening, immunisations and long-term condition monitoring. They also signposted people to local services and support where appropriate. Although uptake of cervical screening and childhood immunisations remained below national targets, the practice had recognised these as areas for improvement and had plans in place to increase uptake. These included additional cervical screening clinics, patient education and working with the PCN to improve outcomes. We found the practice understood the challenges of caring for a diverse population and was committed to continually improving the way people accessed information and services. During the assessment, leaders were receptive to feedback about making written information more accessible in different languages and immediately reinstated the language translation option on the practice website.Planning for the future
People who used the service were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment and supported to plan for these. Discussions with staff demonstrated that people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services, as necessary. Multi-disciplinary team meetings were held on a regular basis to discuss the needs of people receiving end of life care.