The Hollies 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 service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we did not rate this key question. At this assessment, we have rated the key question of responsive as good.

This service scored 64 (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 patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that 90% of patients felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment.

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. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.

The service allowed 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.

Learning from complaints was evident and discussed in team meetings. However, the practices’ complaints policy lacked detail and did not contain adequate information about the nature of complaints and how they was resolved.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We received a mixed response when we spoke to patients regarding access to appointments and getting through to the practice on the phone. The 2024 National GP Patient Survey showed that 52 percent of respondents found it easy to access the practice by phone. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. This included offering appointments with other healthcare professionals, weekend appointments within their Primary Care Network and sign posting to pharmacies for prescribing. However, results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey have showed satisfaction levels decreased and that 27 percent of respondents found it easy to access the practice by phone.

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.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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 were not always 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.

We reviewed five patient records on the practices’ palliative care list to examine their Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) records. Our records review showed four out of five patients did not have DNACPR forms included in the patient’s clinical records and accessible to clinicians.