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 patients’ needs, and that staff treated patients equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating has changed to 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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

The practice demonstrated a strong commitment to continuity and quality of care through clearly documented and personalised approaches. Care plans reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

The practice had implemented a population health approach to identify patients that had higher levels of deprivation and were at risk of health inequalities. The practice had adapted a national approach to identify patients within this specific cohort. This initiative supported the practice’s approach to population health management. This new system allowed the practice to identify patients who may not appear as high risk from a single clinical indicator but may be at increased risk because of wider health equalities.

The practice demonstrated a proactive approach to person-centred care by addressing digital inclusion, improving identification of vulnerable groups, and tailoring support to individual needs. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, deprivation of liberty safeguarding and mental capacity.

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 patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care pathways were designed to address patients’ social, mental and physical health needs from the first point of contact, with structured follow-up arrangements in place to ensure continuity and sustained support. For example, chronic disease management clinics. This approach reflected a shared journey between staff and patients. Staff took consistent and proactive steps to co-ordinate care.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice was an accredited armed forces veteran friendly practice and was also registered as a safe surgery. Staff had been trained in recognising the barriers to healthcare that exist, particularly for migrants in vulnerable circumstances.

Continuity and consistency of care were further strengthened by a stable clinical team. A review of clinical systems showed that referrals were made promptly, and information received from other services was managed effectively and in a timely way, supporting safe and well-coordinated care.

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

The practice demonstrated a strong commitment to accessibility and inclusion. Interpreter services, including British Sign Language, were available, a hearing loop was available, and patients were supported to understand how to access their care records.

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.

Services were tailored to meet the diverse needs of the local population, with a clear focus on reducing barriers to access. The practice made appropriate reasonable adjustments for patients requiring additional support, including access to translation services, and demonstrated full compliance with the Accessible Information Standard. This ensured patients received information in a way they could understand, promoting inclusivity and equitable access to care.

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

Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person or via the practice website.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 84% 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 in line with the local average of 85% and the national average of 87%.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. They had reviewed and analysed their FFT results from April 2025 to March 2026 which showed the practice had received 1823 responses. The results demonstrated consistently positive patient feedback. For example:

• 795 patients (43.6%) rated their experience as Very Good.
• 687 patients (37.7%) rated their experience as Good.

The practice achieved overall 81.3% positive reviews. The practice had received the most responses in October 2025, with 310 patients rating the practice as either good or very good.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment patients received.

There was a patient participation group (PPG), in place and meetings were held on average every 2 months. We spoke with 1 member of the group who told us the leadership team were present at the meetings and provided updates on the practice and actively listened to the PPG members and their suggestions.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

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

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 84% of patients say the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the local average of 85% and the national average of 87%.

The practice demonstrated a patient-centred approach to access and demand management. They had a duty doctor in place to provide support to staff and deal with urgent queries. The leadership team monitored capacity and regularly reviewed where changes to the appointments were required. For example, the number of e-consult requests were monitored on a monthly basis. Evidence provided showed that on average the practice received 3,276 requests per 1,000 patients, this was considerably higher than the national average of 1,592. The leadership team had identified that there was an increased workload for the on-call GP on a Monday. To ensure patients requests were reviewed in a timely manner, an increase in GPs reviewing online requests had been implemented. The leadership team had also increased the number of clinical staff to support demand for appointments.

Access systems were responsive and patient focused. Patients could access appointments by phone and online. The practice used an online triage system where all requests for a GP appointment were directed to the duty doctor to make a decision on the appropriate care pathway required. 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. Staff were available to support patients who were digitally excluded to complete the form. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment.

Feedback from patients was positive. Patients we spoke with during the onsite assessment highlighted the improvements they had seen and the responsiveness of the service. The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as complaints and via informal feedback from patients.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week. Extended appointments were available for vulnerable patients and those with a learning disability. The practice provided extended hours appointments one evening a week until 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 and a pharmacist. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and on Saturday through an arrangement with other local GP practices.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients 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 patients 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. We found the premises were user friendly for patients with a disability.

We observed staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patients’ 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 towards patients and made adjustments to support equity in patients’ experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure patients could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless patients. The practice was registered ‘Safe Surgery’ and supported patients who were homeless, in temporary accommodation or seeking asylum. A ‘Safe Surgery’ is a GP practice with a declared commitment to addressing the barriers patients face in accessing healthcare or support, including refugees. The practice was also veteran accredited. Veteran accredited is a programme that enables GP practices to sign up voluntarily to undertake specialist training on veterans' health and wellbeing for patients who have served with the armed forces, and their families.

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

Patients we spoke with on the day of assessment were positive about the services provided. Staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patients 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 patient’s experience and outcomes.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from patients using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

Patients 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. Evidence was provided that showed 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.

Our records review showed patients were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms were in place and available within the clinical record.