Seaton Surgery

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 provider met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.
At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.
 

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 provider ensured people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment and worked in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs. Care planning took account of patients’ physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Clinical records demonstrated that patients were supported to understand their conditions and were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. National GP Patient Survey results published in July 2026 were positive, with 97% of respondents reporting they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last GP appointment, compared with 93% across the Integrated Care System (ICS) and 92% nationally.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, ensuring care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The provider worked in partnership with a range of healthcare providers and community providers to meet the needs of its patient population. This included close working with other providers such as learning disability providers, community pharmacists and local trust providers. The provider also built relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of screening programmes and improve engagement with harder-to-reach patients. Established arrangements for multidisciplinary working and shared care helped ensure patients received coordinated and timely support. The provider also worked closely with carers' organisations to identify and support patients with caring responsibilities, helping them access appropriate advice, providers and additional support when needed.

The provider supplied information in a range of accessible formats to meet patients' individual communication needs, including translated materials, British Sign Language (BSL) interpretation, Braille, large print and easy-read information. Longer appointments could be arranged where required, and the provider followed an Accessible Information Standard policy and protocol to ensure patients' communication needs were identified, recorded and supported appropriately. Patients were also informed about how to access their care records.

Patients' communication requirements were coded on the clinical system and highlighted through priority alerts to ensure appropriate support was provided. Where patients were referred to other providers, relevant communication needs, such as interpreter requirements, were included within referral letters to promote continuity of care. The provider communicated with patients through a range of channels including telephone calls, emails, letters and Accurx messaging. Social media was used to share updates and health promotion information, although it was not used for direct communication with the surgery.

The provider made it easy for patients to share feedback, make suggestions, and raise complaints about their care and treatment. Complaints could be made in writing or verbally, and where patients were unable to communicate their concerns independently, reasonable adjustments were made to support them. Patients were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care and were informed of changes made in response to feedback.

Complaints were managed in line with the provider’s policy and records showed they were investigated and responded to appropriately. Learning from complaints was embedded within the practice, with outcomes used to drive improvements in patient care and service delivery. The provider had a clear escalation process for patients who remained dissatisfied with the outcome of a complaint. Staff were able to describe changes made as a result of patient feedback and complaints, demonstrating a culture of openness, learning and continuous improvement. For example, following a complaint, the practice identified that a patient had additional needs which were not previously known to staff. As a result, reasonable adjustments were put in place to help ensure these needs were recognised and appropriately considered during future interactions with the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider utilised a range of data sources, including the National GP Patient Survey, to identify and implement improvements to access. Following a review of demand, capacity and appointment systems, patient satisfaction with appointment waiting times increased from 46% in 2025 to 55% in 2026, exceeding the national average of 54%, although remaining below the ICS average of 58%. Access through the NHS App also improved significantly from 57% to 70%, compared with 58% across the ICS and 54% nationally. The provider continued to perform exceptionally well in key access measures, with 91% of patients who responded finding it easy to get through by phone, compared with 62% across the ICS and 57% nationally. The provider also used telephony data to identify peak demand periods and ensure additional staff were available during busier times to support patient access.

The provider provided extended appointments for people with a learning disability and offered a range of access routes to meet different patient needs, including online, telephone and face-to-face providers. The provider worked with social prescribers to support patients in accessing providers, including assistance with using the NHS App and signposting to appropriate community and support providers.

The premises had some accessibility features, including treatment rooms on the ground floor and a hearing loop. There was a ramp at the main entrance, although the provider told us it was steeper than desired and planning permission to alter it had previously been declined as any changes would obstruct the public walkway. Where required, some patients were supported to use an alternative entrance to improve accessibility. Additional support included access to surgery wheelchairs, a chairlift and nearby parking facilities, helping to ensure people with mobility needs could access the building. Staff demonstrated an understanding of individual patient needs and made reasonable adjustments to support equitable access for all patients.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who may be at greater risk of experiencing inequalities in access, experience or outcomes and tailored care and support in response. Feedback from people using the service, including information shared directly with the provider and with CQC, was positive. Leaders worked proactively with local organisations, including voluntary sector partners, to identify and address health inequalities within the provider population. The provider was accredited as a Veteran Friendly Provider and ensured that the needs of veterans were recognised and supported. Staff understood the importance of providing inclusive and person-centred care and made reasonable adjustments to support equitable access and outcomes for patients. The provider had processes in place to ensure people could register with the provider regardless of their circumstances, including people experiencing homelessness, who could register without providing proof of address. Staff used a variety of methods to obtain and review patient feedback, including from people who did not speak English as their first language or who did not have access to digital services, helping to ensure they remained responsive to the needs of the local population.

People were generally supported to plan for important life changes, including future care needs and end-of-life care, so they had opportunities to make informed decisions about their treatment and preferences. Records reviewed demonstrated that people were supported to discuss and document their wishes, including decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR), and this information was shared appropriately with other providers when required. While 1 DNACPR record initially appeared to show an overdue review, the provider subsequently confirmed that the review had been completed and that the discrepancy was due to a coding issue. Care homes aligned to the provider provided positive feedback regarding collaborative working, including regular ward rounds and communication, which helped support seamless care for residents.