Bridport 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

Responsive - We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs through good organisation and delivery.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains rated Good.

This service scored 75 (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.

People could share their experience of the service via Friends and Family Test (FFT) survey and the National GP-Patient Survey (GPPS). We reviewed feedback via the service’s most recent FFT survey and found positive results had been received in relation to recommending the service to a friend of family member. For example, in December 2025, the service received 743 feedback responses which identified 89% would recommend the service and thought the service was positive. The service regularly reviewed feedback from people who used the service, identifying themes and trends where possible during monthly meetings.

The service received 23 feedback responses from 100 surveys in October 2025 in relation to the 2 dispensaries at Maiden Newton practice and Tunnel Road practice. All 23 survey results demonstrated positive outcomes relating to timely access to prescriptions as well as satisfaction with the renovated reception and waiting area at Maiden Newton practice.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 showed people described their overall experience of receiving person-centred care was positive. In particular, results demonstrated clinicians listened to people’s concerns and treated people with compassion, of which these indicators identified above local and national averages. The service monitored results from staff surveys and feedback. A review of themes and trends indicated a positive working culture amongst staff and were regularly updated with any service changes.

We received feedback from local partners including local care homes, which identified positive themes of how their service users were supported and offered personable care. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs and in decisions about their care.

Staff demonstrated awareness of how the service considered people’s preferences and how these were taken into consideration when co-ordinating care. Where appropriate, staff included carers and dependants and processes were in place to share decision-making about their treatment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. We identified the service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its service users. The service had tailored its provision to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, integrated Primary Care Network (PCN) services contributed to continuity and shared decision‑making. The ‘Ageing Well Team’ supported home visits for frail and housebound patients, enabling consistent follow‑up and early intervention. Feedback highlighted positive outcomes for people who used this service.

The service was part of multidisciplinary meetings with local healthcare partners and stakeholders for people with complex needs such as with community district nursing and community mental health services. The service had built relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of screening programmes which was co-ordinated through the service’s social prescriber. For example, people were signposted to community-based initiatives such as dementia drop-in community clinics and carer support sessions.

The service ensured longer appointments were available for those with additional needs. Action was taken to remove barriers when people found it hard to use services. For example, because of people’s feedback, the service integrated provision with a local initiative which enabled free talking therapies for people aged 18 and over who were experiencing low mood, depression and anxiety. People could access this service via service staff or self-referral.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

During our assessment, we were provided evidence which demonstrated the service had met the Accessible Information Standards. The service identified people who required additional support to engage with services, including those who were digitally excluded, patients whose first language was not English and people with sensory impairments. For example, British Sign Language interpreter access, a hearing loop and personalised access notes (‘patient plan’) were used for people who were deaf or hard of hearing. The service provided information in alternative formats such as large print and braille, and staff made reasonable adjustments for people with communication or cognitive needs

Leaflets were available in the reception area and posters were displayed to provide people with information on the service and the provision available to them. People were also provided with information on how to access their medical records. A private room was available if people were distressed or wanted to discuss sensitive issues. There were arrangements to ensure confidentiality at the reception desk and during telephone calls. We assessed the service’s subject access request processes and found there were systems in place to manage and provide people’s information and data in timeframes in accordance with service policy.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Information was displayed on the service’s website and within the service’s premises to support people to share feedback and raise any concerns or complaints.

Staff encouraged people to share their experiences of the service and supported them to raise concerns. Feedback and complaints were investigated and resolved in line with service policy. Staff were able to provide examples of learning and how the service had improved from people’s experiences, such as ensuring people had the ‘Right to Choose’ for their referral options for secondary care NHS providers. The NHS Right to Choose is a legal right for registered NHS patients in England to choose their provider for specialist care, such as a neurodevelopmental assessment after GP referral.

During our assessment, we reviewed a sample of complaints, and these were investigated and responded to appropriately in line with service policy. The service had an effective system in place monitoring and handling complaints and responded to feedback in an open and transparent way. Where appropriate, people were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

National GPPS data showed results for accessing the practice in line with national averages and statistical variations. Data showed 74% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the service which was comparative with the national average of 69%. With 44% of people finding it easy to access the service via telephone, compared with the national average of 53%.

Feedback from people collected by the service was positive in relation to accessing services which suited their needs. For example, online, in person, by telephone and could also submit medical or admin requests online via the practice website. The service offered extended access arrangements outside of normal working hours provided by a GP and a nurse practitioner on Saturday mornings and weekday evenings through the local primary care network (PCN). The service had utilised PCN resources to provide a co-ordinated package of care, such as mental health practitioners, first contact physiotherapists and pharmacy technicians.

There were safety-netting mechanisms to ensure the on-the-day duty GP reviewed and contacted people whose online triage request deemed their clinical need as urgent, when daily appointments were fully booked. The service also had an electronic triage request system which was used and monitored daily for people’s requests that could not be triaged due to the complexity of the request or if no appointments were available and offered.

We saw evidence of audits completed in relation to access performance, such as appointment capacity and demand data, appointment waiting times and ‘Did Not Attend’ (DNA) rates per GP to assess performance. This also helped provide oversight to rota management and staffing arrangements to meet access demand. The service had also reviewed audits of telephone access data which included the total number of inbound calls daily; queue waiting times and call abandonments. The service told us of the actions that had been taken to improve access to services such as additional call handlers during busy periods and adjusting communication to people on the telephone queue system to advise them of changes in service provision.

Peoples’ accessibility and communication needs were recorded in their clinical records. Staff were trained in the care navigation process to ensure people were directed to the most appropriate part of the service.

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.

Staff told us they considered how they tailored care, support and treatment to individual needs. Staff told us if families had experienced a bereavement, the service contacted them to offer an appointment to discuss any further needs. Families were signposted to relevant support groups, such as the service’s mental health support workers and social prescribers.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders took proactive steps to identify and address barriers to improving people's experiences. They worked with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to address 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. Staff told us they had completed relevant awareness training in supporting people with learning disabilities, autism and dementia.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or those who faced digital exclusion. The service held a register of people who were carers and offered annual health checks. We saw examples of local care initiatives to help support carers in the community.

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.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision-making and had access to policies to support them. 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. People who were recorded on the service’s palliative care register were reviewed in monthly multi-disciplinary meetings. The service had developed co-ordinated work with the local PCN home visiting service and ‘Ageing Well’ team which focused on accessibility for vulnerable people and people with frailty. The team assessed people and their environments at home, discussed personal wishes and explored care needs. This included decisions regarding future planning and wishes regarding treatment.

The service’s advanced practitioners undertook physical health assessments with the aim of diagnosing and prescribing medicines for those who may not ordinarily request support for healthcare services. In addition, provided regular reviews and ward rounds within care homes across the Primary Care Network. From our remote review of clinical records, we noted personalised care plans were documented and reviewed appropriately, with the individual, their relatives and carers and health and social care professionals.

The service completed ‘Gold Standard Framework’ audits to identify, assess, and plan care for people who may be in their last year of life, to ensure care was personalised and aligned with people’s wishes. The Gold Standard Framework is a nationally recognised, evidence‑based framework used across primary care, community services and care homes to enable high‑quality, proactive and coordinated end‑of‑life care. The service worked with a multi-disciplinary team, including district nurses, care home staff, and other professionals to coordinate care. The service carried out monthly audits from April to October 2025 to review the number of people on the palliative care register; how many people had personalised care plans in place; and completion of holistic assessments. The service identified from 335 people on the palliative care register, 84.6% people had an Advanced Care Plan (ACP) in place. An ACP ensures that a person’s voice remains central to decisions about their care even if they later lose the ability to communicate or make decisions. The service documented targets to review all ACPs and people with a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decision to ensure these remained appropriate, as part of the service’s improvement plan and for comparison during the next audit cycle.