Great Barr 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 remained the same.

At the last assessment we found that patient feedback highlighted difficulties in accessing services and this was also reflected in the results of the GP National Patient Survey for access. We found no evidence to demonstrate that the provider had reviewed patient feedback to improve services. We also found that complaints were not used to drive improvement.

At this assessment, we found that the practice had taken action to respond to patient needs. Improvements had been made so people could access services when they needed to, without physical or digital barriers, including out of normal hours and in an emergency. The complaints process had also been reviewed and updated and learning from complaints was shared with the practice team to improve patient satisfaction.

Leaders understood the challenges to patient access and services were being designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. At the time of our assessment people could access e-Consult through the practice website and additional staff had been recruited to increase telephone access. The practice was also looking at a callback facility to reduce people’s waiting time on the telephone and to improve access.

This service scored 62 (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.

The practice told us that they regularly involved patients in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment that meets their needs. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, deprivation of liberty safeguarding and mental capacity.

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. The practice had seen an increase in people’s satisfaction scores. For example, the results of the 2025 GP National Patient Survey showed 59% described their overall experience of the practice as good in comparison to the 2024 results where the practice had achieved 48%. The results continued to be lower than the national average of 71%.

Patient satisfaction scores in the 2025 GP National Patient Survey were below local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 73% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. This was lower than the national average of 86%. An inhouse patient survey had been completed during March 2025 which showed 94% of patients responded positively to being treated with care and concern.

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 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.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and were taking action to develop services in response to those needs. Through the Primary Care Network (PCN), the practice staff were able to offer patients access to other services such as social prescribing and physiotherapy to support their overall health and wellbeing. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

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

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for patients to support them to understand how to access services. For example, there were arrangements in place for people who need translation services or who may be digitally excluded.

There were systems in place to support patients who face communication barriers to access treatment and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard and that information about people that collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

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.

Following the last assessment in November 2024, the practice had reviewed their complaints procedures and had strengthened this. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. There were regular practice meetings where complaints and significant events were discussed and learning was shared to make improvements. One of the management team had completed a complaints champion workshop to ensure the practice adhered to the complaints process. They also acted as a complaints advocate to support people making complaints. Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person, or via the practice website.

The practice had seen an increase in satisfaction scores from the national GP patient survey. The results of the 2025 survey showed 79% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was a 3% increase in 2024 results. The results however continued to be lower than the national average of 87%.

The practice had recently started a patient participation group (PPG) and regular meetings were now in place to discuss improvements and plans to improve the service.

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

The practice was responding to the needs of their population and were developing services in response to those needs. The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as the GP patient survey, an inhouse survey, complaints and informal feedback from patients. The practice undertook ongoing audits to determine demand and capacity regarding their appointment system and continued to monitor the availability of appointments and staff on a daily basis.

The 2025 GP national patient survey showed 21% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was lower than the national average of 53%, but a slight increase on the 2024 results where the practice had achieved 18%. The practice had increased the number of staff answering the telephones and had also introduced e-Consult to provide people with the opportunity to request appointments online through the practice website. Data provided by the telephone provider showed a 17.97% reduction in calls to the practice from May 2024 to April 2025 following the implementation of e-Consult. The response times in answering calls had also improved with an average wait time of 2 minutes 10 seconds. Further evidence provided showed administrative and medical requests were being submitted via E-consult. The practice had seen an increase in patients using the E-consult option. For example, in January 2025 a total of 35 requests were received through the online service and by April 2025, this had increased to 2,029 requests. This had reduced the volume of calls being received by the practice and feedback from staff and patients we spoke with on the day of assessment highlighted improvements on telephone access. The leadership team were aware that further improvements were required and had plans to further increase patient satisfaction scores.

Patients could access appointments by phone, via e-Consult on the practice website and by visiting the practice. The practice used a sign-posting triage system where reception staff would ask the patient for enough information to make a decision regarding which clinician was appropriate for them to see and a duty doctor was available each day to provide support. Patients were given the option of a face to face or telephone appointment. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. People who had a non-urgent medical or administration request could submit a form online. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week. Extended access was available every Wednesday from 6.30pm to 8pm. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact 111. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff for example nurses, health care assistant and pharmacist. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and at the weekend through an arrangement with other local GP practices.

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 practice had promoted and responded to feedback by people who used the service within the last 12 months. People could leave feedback via NHS UK, the practice website and via the Friends and Family test (FFT).

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. A disability risk assessment had been completed in September 2024. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability with designated parking spaces and lift access if required.

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. One of the leadership team had recently completed a mental health first aider training course to provide support to people attending the practice.

The practice had established pathways for digitally excluded patients and had extended GP appointments to 15 minutes for people within this group, further enhancing patient care. The practice was also planning a digital exclusion register which would code patients based on their digital literacy. This would support staff in understanding the needs of patients and how best to support them in accessing the services of the practice.

People we spoke with on the day of assessment was positive about the services provided. Staff treated people 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.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making and had access to policies to support them. We were told that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings to share and discuss information relating to patient care and treatment, for example, those on the practice palliative care register.

There were systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date in training relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. We found that staff had completed the required training.

There were registers held for those patients who were vulnerable who were on the palliative care register or at the end of their life. We found that clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making and saw that consent was documented.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We reviewed a random sample of 4 clinical records of people who had a do not resuscitate form in place (DNACPR) and found 3 out of the 4 records we viewed did not have a copy of the form in place.