Albany 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 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 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.

Regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held with relevant professionals and services to discuss and plan person-centred care and treatment so that people’s needs could be met holistically. This was reflected in the GP patient survey as 89% of people stated that during their last appointment, they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to.

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 many long-standing clinical staff which provided continuity and stability with minimal requirements for locum staff. However, when locum staff had been needed the same staff were used to ensure consistency.

The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service was an accredited Armed Forces veteran friendly service which meant they had staff who understood military-related health conditions, could provide appropriate information and could refer to specialist services.

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

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, and a hearing loop was also available. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service’s website contained a variety of information to support and educate people, includingself-help advice on healthy lifestyles and mental wellbeing as well as information on local news and updates within the service.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of feedback, including complaints. Staff told us these were considered as learning events rather than complaints.

Staff were aware of their duty of candour and to be open and honest when things went wrong. The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Test Surveys to identify patterns and recurring issues (both good and bad) that could help improve the quality of the service and enhance peoples satisfaction, For example, the most recent survey results were in relation to poor telephone access, the service acknowledged this concern and moved administrative staff onto the telephones at busy times such as mornings and after lunch. Leaders were aware the telephone system was not an “iCloud” based one, but they had 3 months left of their contract and had sourced a better alternative.

The provider had an active patient participation group (PPG). The PPG told us how they worked in partnership with the service. Meetings were held quarterly and were attended by leaders of the service. Members of the PPG who we spoke to described the strong relationship between the service and themselves, and how the service encouraged, respected and valued their involvement.

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 for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and there was a ramp and automatic door fitted to the entrance.

People had the choice of face-to-face appointments, a telephone appointment, pre-bookable on the day and video calls. Housebound people were offered routine home visits by the home visiting team.

People living in 4 nearby care homes received weekly ward rounds from a multidisciplinary team.

Data from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed the overall experience of contacting the service and the ease in contacting the service on the telephone were both below the national averages. The service had taken action to address these. For example, the service had provided additional training to reception staff to improve communication skills and utilised staff from other departments to answer the telephones at busier times.

The service, with help from the PPG, encouraged people to use digital access by helping them to use the service’s online platform and the national NHS application

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 provider 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, 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 people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, 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.

Peoples’ communication needs were added to their records, along with guidance on how these needs would be met.

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.