Iridium Medical Practice

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 practice met patient’s needs, and that staff treated patients 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.

The practice understood their population and worked to put patients at the centre of decision about their care. Staff worked hard to overcome barriers to healthcare for the most vulnerable patient groups and provided continuity of care for some patients. Information was provided to patients in a clear and accessible way including information about how to complain. Patients were able to access the service when they needed to, including those who were more likely to experience difficulties accessing care. The practice supported patients in planning for the future including decisions regarding end-of-life care.
 

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At our previous inspection we found that care was not always patient-centred and care plans did not always reflect the physical, mental, emotional and social needs of patients. At this inspection we saw improvements, care plans we looked at were comprehensive and record keeping showed how patients had been involved in decisions about their care. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs.

A dedicated learning disability lead GP had improved the service for this group of patients ensuring that regular reviews occurred and care plans were completed. A dedicated home visiting team had improved the accessibility and continuity of care for housebound patients. This team had longer appointments to ensure multiple issues could be addressed in one visit and continuity of care improved understanding of needs as well as communication.

Patient feedback was mixed. Of those who responded to the National GP Patient survey, results were slightly below the national average with 81% reporting they felt listened to, compared with the national average of 87%. Eighty-nine per cent of patients said they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment as much as they wanted to be, compared with the national average of 92%.The practice independently reviewed the survey results and implemented a targeted action plan to facilitate improvement. However, CQC received 63 positive feedback submissions some of which included that patients felt listened to and given time to ask questions.

The practice understood of the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The practice operated in an area of socio-economic deprivation and had significant numbers of vulnerable patients including refugees and prison leavers who commonly experienced barriers to care. There was a very active, responsive social prescribing team who were passionate about seeking out and providing opportunities for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. As a result, the practice worked with a variety of other health, local authority, voluntary and charitable stakeholders to host or establish referral pathways into a wide range of support and advice services. Examples of this included a popular seated exercise group that was run at the practice’s branch site which had recently had its funding stopped. However, the group of regular attendees had been offered opportunities to participate as a group, in gardening activities at local allotments led by a voluntary sector organisation, so that established friendships and support networks could be maintained. The practice health inequalities lead was actively pursuing funding options in order to restore the exercise class. The lead had also established links with the local authority travel department to provide free bus passes to eligible patients and publicise this opportunity, as many patients did not realise they were entitled to one.

The practice was an integral part of the Integrated Neighbourhood Team (INT) which brought together social workers, mental health practitioners, community nurses and social prescribers with practice staff to provide early intervention for patients with complex needs. This supported continuity of care as patients only had to tell their story once and staff met for weekly multidisciplinary team meetings where information was shared and discussed. Data the practice shared showed that since the INT had been established there was a reduced demand for GP appointments and reduced hospital admissions amongst this cohort of patients.

Access and continuity of care had been improved some specific groups of patients however, feedback showed that patients could not always get an appointment with the same or their preferred GP.
 

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was available in a range of languages and different sized fonts, on request at reception and via the practice website. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard.

A wide range of information was available on the practice website which could be translated into multiple languages. This included information on how to complain, health advice and copies of the practice newsletter; this featured health information on a specific topic each month and local news such as information about a recent measles outbreak within the city.

Information on how to register with the practice, how to complain, the patient participation group, chaperones and interpreting services was also available in the waiting room. We noticed that none of the practice information posters were in languages other than English. When we raised this the practice produced posters in their most common other languages the next day.

Due to the open plan layout of the waiting room with full length windows on 2 sides there was limited space for general health information posters. Some leaflets were available including about mental health services and sexual health services for young people. There was a comments box for patients and a ‘you said, we did’ poster showing the outcome of feedback-driven improvements.
 

The practice 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. There was information about how to complain on the practice website and in the waiting area. Patients could also post complaints anonymously if they wished in a box in the waiting room.

There was a dedicated complaints manager and a specific email address for complaints that patients could access. Complaints were acknowledged, investigated and responded to in a timely manner. The practice maintained a complaints log and reviewed it regularly to identify any recurrent themes. One current theme was the perceived negative attitude of some staff and the practice had acknowledged this and implemented training to address it.

The practice also maintained a log of concerns, verbal comments or complaints that could generally be managed quickly by a phone call and did not require the formal complaints process. They had logged 135 of these ‘niggles’ between October 2025 and July 2026 which had been addressed swiftly and thereby prevented from progressing to a formal complaint. Learning from complaints and concerns was shared within team and practice meetings.

The complaints lead also regularly assessed online reviews for the practice, responding to them and where possible contacting patients to address any specific concerns.

The practice had a patient participation group (PPG) which met regularly. The practice was working to recruit additional members and, at the time of the assessment, an interim chair was in place. PPG members said that meetings were often arranged at short notice and minutes were not always available. The practice recognised that the timing of meetings was not always convenient and was exploring ways to improve participation. Evidence provided demonstrated that meeting dates were scheduled in advance and minutes were available via the practice website.

The practice gathered a range of feedback including online reviews, friends and family test data (FFT) and patient surveys as well as analysing the results of the National GP Patient Survey.

Mostly patients felt supported to raise concerns, although some patients told us their complaints were not always responded to in a timely manner. New ways had been introduced for both staff and patients to make complaints such as anonymous comments boxes and a dedicated Patient Feedback and Experience email address on the practice website. Members of the patient participation group (PPG) reported that they were given feedback on complaints, incidents and the learning that had resulted.
 

Mostly patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice proactively used data to monitor the demand for appointments and flex their capacity as required. For example, not all book on the day appointments were available at 8am, a reserve was released at 4pm as data had shown there was a surge in demand after school and work ended. Appointments were available between 8am and 8pm every weekday and from 9am to 1pm on a Saturday. Patients could book face to face or telephone appointment via the website, NHS app or by telephone. On the day of our inspection both GP and nurse appointments were available for that day.

The practice offered extended appointments for those with more complex needs, mental health concerns or specific clinics such as baby clinic. The practice offered appointments with a wide range of health professional other than GPs including advanced practitioner nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and social prescribers. Home visits were carried out by GP’s, paramedics and healthcare assistants.

Administrative staff booking appointments were trained care co-ordinators and were supported by a duty GP and pharmacist who undertook clinical triage. Specific criteria governed which patients could be booked with non-GP healthcare professionals to ensure patients saw the most appropriate professional and that staff worked within their scope of practice.

The practice was fully accessible with automatic doors at the main entrance and clinic rooms on the ground floor. Accessible toilets, baby changing and breast-feeding facilities were available.

Mostly patient feedback was positive about the ability to book an appointment when they needed it. In the 2026 National GP Patient Survey 61% of patients found it easy to contact the practice by phone, this was above the national average of 57% and showed an improving trend over the last 3 years. The practice performed below the national average of 58% for ease of contact via their website, with 46% of patients finding it easy. However, this may be due to increased use of the NHS App for appointment booking as the practice performed above the national average for this. Overall, 73% of patients described their experience of contacting their GP as good which is in line with the national average. However, data from the National GP Patient Survey regarding continuity of care and choice of day or time of appointment was below the national average. Following our inspection the practice implemented an action plan to address these areas.Overall patient feedback that CQC received directly was positive about access.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. 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 patients’ experience and outcomes. The practice had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

The practice had an armed forces veteran friendly accreditation. 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. Staff had completed relevant training on equality and diversity, learning disabilities and autism. There were systems in place to identify, monitor and respond when patients required reasonable adjustments for characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010 or had communication or other specific needs. Governance processes were in place to ensure this information was reviewed and updated at least annually.

The practice maintained registers of patient who had additional needs such as those approaching the end of life and patients with caring responsibilities. Additional support was provided to these groups such as rapid access to a named GP.

The practice Health Inequalities Lead worked with a variety of local authority, charitable and voluntary organisations, signposting patients to suitable opportunities but also bringing some services into the practice such as organisations supporting patients back into employment or those experiencing domestic violence.
 

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

A recent retrospective audit of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNA CPR) decisions or recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) forms was undertaken by the practice end of life care lead. The findings showed that all patients had a form except those who had deteriorated rapidly or had only recently registered with the practice. 95% of records showed that the DNA CPR / ReSPECT form had been reviewed in the previous 12 months and that patients had been involved in the discussion about their wishes. Action arising from this audit included linking review of the DNA CPR / ReSPECT form to the palliative care register and introducing a template for documenting patient and family discussions and the clinical rationale for the decision. The aim was to improve the quality and consistency of record keeping.