Cossington Park 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 previous comprehensive assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, we rated this key question 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 practice made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of clinicians. The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum.

For example, the reception staff had been trained in a number of different duties, so they were all able to support a patient with a query. Staff told us previously only one member of staff processed hospital letters however after receiving training, all reception staff now know how to process these including tasking the correct department for any action required. Leaders explained this change had improved patient care as there is now a reduced time in processing hospital letters for patients.

Data from the National Patient Survey showed that 95% of respondents felt theywere involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, which was in line with the national average of 92%. NHS Friends and Family Test data was collated and reviewed monthly. The latest NHS Friends and Family Test data found 100% of patients surveyed said they found their care at the practice to be ‘Very Good.’

As part of this assessment, to hear from patients about their experiences we asked the service to share details of CQCs ‘Give Feedback on Care’ process. CQC received feedback from 5 patients of which all 5 were positive about their experience of the service. Positive patient feedback related to the clinical care and treatment received, and staff helpfulness and compassion.

National GP Patient Survey results highlighted 38% of patients felt they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses which was significantly lower than the national average of 70%.

The practice 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 practice worked in partnership with other services to endeavour to meet the needs of its patient population.

For example, staff attended multi-disciplinary team meetings with other healthcare professionals; and information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required. Staff also informed us of their use of an app for patients which is a digital platform designed to enhance social prescribing by connecting healthcare professionals and patients with local community groups, and non-medical support services to help address issues like isolation, mental health, and financial stress.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Patients were informed about how to access their care records. If patients had difficulty using digital services, staff provided support sessions to ensure online inclusivity.

A range of health and wellbeing posters were on display in the waiting area for patient information. In addition, the practice provided information for patients via the practice website which was available in 20 different languages.

96% of respondents from the National GP Patient Survey Data felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment.

71% of patients reported they knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice which was below the national average of 84%. However, 98% of patients reported they knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting their GP practice which was above the national average of 93%.

Leaders were aware of the feedback from patients, and we saw evidence of reports on this information and action plans to improve the service for patients.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their care and treatment. Feedback could be given verbally or in writing. Patients were encouraged to leave feedback, share their views, and give suggestions on how the practice could improve the service they provided.

The practice listened to patient preferences when making decisions about their care. The GP National Patient Survey data reported 87% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, which was the same as the national average.

The practice had a complaints policy. The Practice Manager led on dealing with complaints. This role included investigating complaints, liaising with staff involved, drafting complaint responses and agreeing timescales. We saw complaints were discussed and reviewed to improve the quality of care at clinical and reception meetings. Learning was shared with staff to ensure improvements were made. Patients were signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) if they were not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint.

We discussed with leaders changes that had been made as a result of feedback from patients. For example, in February 2026, the practice undertook an upgrade of the telephony system. The new system included a call-back function, which allows patients to retain their place in the telephone queue without waiting on hold. Leaders told us recorded telephone calls were listened to for staff training for learning and quality improvement.

The practice was open from 8.00am to 18:30pm Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday; and 08:00am to 20:00pm on Tuesday. On Saturday patients could receive extended access appointments at a local surgery within the Primary Care Network (PCN) between 09:00am and 17:00pm.

Various appointment types were available such as in person, online or telephone consultations. As part of our assessment, we reviewed data from the National GP Patient Survey relating to patient access to the service. For example:

55% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone which was in line with the national average of 57%.

57% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by their website, which was in line with the national average of 58%.

74% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by the NHS app, which was significantly above the national average of 54%.

61%of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, which was in slightly below the national average of 69%.

Leaders shared with us actions they had taken to improve access for patients. For example, the practice had transformed the telephony and digital contact infrastructure. Leaders reported this new system provided significantly more data which enabled them to monitor telephone call volumes, waiting times and outcomes more effectively which could be used to identify further improvements. This new system had improved patient experience of the service which was evident in the increased satisfaction reported in the National GP Patient Survey with accessing the practice by telephone which had improved by 20% from 2024.

During our site visit we assessed the practice facilities. We found the practice was accessible for wheelchair users, and all consultation rooms were accessible on the ground floor. Disabled toilets were available as well as baby feeding and changing facilities. There was a car park on site with designated disabled parking spaces.

Staff treated people equally, without discrimination. 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. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experiences. For example, as an accredited Veteran Friendly Practice, they demonstrated a proactive approach to supporting former members of the armed forces.

Processes were in place to ensure vulnerable people could register at the practice such as people who were homeless. The practice was also accredited as a ‘Safe Surgery’ which are GP practices which commit to taking steps to tackle the barriers faced by migrants in accessing healthcare.

We discussed with leaders the challenges related to inequality in experience or outcomes for the patients registered with the practice. Leaders were clear about a number of challenges which included severe deprivation in the community; language barriers; literacy and lack of IT use. Leaders explained the practice patient population is predominantly South Asian, and they recognised a number of specific barriers to digital access within this population. Staff told us older patients in particular had struggled to engage with digital tools such as the NHS App and website. Language was a significant barrier for many patients, and staff had identified that education levels could be low even among younger patients, particularly those who were recent migrants.

To address these challenges, the practice had undertaken a number of actions which included providing a targeted programme of support to help patients facing language or digital literacy barriers to access and use the NHS App. These structured support sessions included direct, hands-on demonstrations showing patients how to download the app, register, and use its core functions (booking appointments, ordering repeat prescriptions, and viewing their record).

The practice had access to interpreting services for patients whose first language was not English, however many of the staff including both administrative and clinical staff, spoke a number of languages including Gujarati which was the predominant language spoken in the community. In addition, staff had arranged for the practice answerphone message to be recorded in Gujarati as well as English.

For patients with learning disabilities, the practice had a Learning Disabilities lead GP and the Health Care Assistant was a point of contact for patients and families and could assist them with accessing external resources. Staff told us extended appointments were available for patients with learning disabilities and staff endeavoured to try to meet as many needs of these patients in one visit.

For patients with hearing impairments, we saw the practice was equipped with a hearing loop system.

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. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Palliative patients were able to have home visits and care packages to ensure their wishes were followed and carried out in their final stages of life.