Creech 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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. We assessed all the quality statements in the safe key question. This key question has been rated as 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in 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 service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. We saw the service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. For example, there was a process for staff to follow for shared care arrangements where someone’s care is provided by more than 1 service.

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

The service’s website could be translated into alternative languages meaning information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages.

The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

People 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.

People with complex health needs were given longer appointments so they had the time to be listened to.

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

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access the service to suit their needs either online, in person or by telephone.

Treatment rooms were located on the ground floor, with step-free access and automatic doors at the entrance.

Staff had received training to manage requests for on-the-day appointments. Complex requests were triaged by clinicians who prioritised those that needed to be seen urgently. We saw appointments were available on-the-day for urgent requests. Routine appointments were available to be booked within a week. There were no cervical screening or diabetic review appointments available to book at the time of this inspection due a staff member leaving next month. The service was in the process of recruiting a new staff member and planned to support the availability of these appointments but using locum staff.

In response to the 2026 National GP Patient Survey and from feedback from members of the community, the service identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, information promoting access to online services was displayed on the waiting room television screen. This would also free up the phone lines for those that are digitally excluded.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the service as well as to CQC, was positive. 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, 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.

The service followed processes to ensure people could register with them, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

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.

This information was shared with other services when necessary. The records we reviewed showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We reviewed a sample of Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) forms and found they detailed people’s future plans and wishes.