Cuckoo Lane Practice

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 assessed all 7 of the quality statements from this key question. At our last assessment we rated this key question as outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 82 (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 was exceptional at making 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. They had a mutual participation approach to care. Staff told us patients were empowered and self-management was encouraged at the service. Patients we spoke with confirmed this.

Leaders provided examples of how they were person centred in relation to the various services that were available to patients registered at the practice and or within the locality. This included lung function clinics, commuter clinics, well woman clinics and ECG services.

Care plans reflected the 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. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

Accessible standards (providing diversity of communication and access to meet various needs) and barriers to care were considered for people, with a range of personalised alerts added to medical records so that staff were aware the person had additional needs. We saw that the service continued to offer virtual support sessions that started during the pandemic. Patient feedback included phrases such as “what a lovely thing”, “I feel so much better”, and “this has made my week”.

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.

We saw the service worked in partnership with other practices to meet the needs of its patient population. They had tailored services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community services to provide evening and weekend appointments. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records and there was a designated IT lead to provide support as necessary.

The service was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. This was reflected in the National GP patient survey results (2025) as 99% of patients felt involved as much as they wanted to be in their care compared to 91% nationally and 90% locally. Similarly, 99% of patients had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional (national 93% and local 92%).

Feedback from PPG regarding involvement was highly positive. We saw the practice held both virtual and face to face meetings for patients to attend based on needs. There was a designated PPG email address patients could use to provide suggestions and a designated patient that was the chair. Leaders informed us patients focused events and sessions were based on patient demand and interests and evidence we saw showed this was targeted at various groups and ideas from PPG meetings were also used. For example, the service led on digital support sessions of the NHS app for 160 patients within the primary care network, and feedback was positive overall for the sessions.

We saw complaints whilst infrequent, 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 patient feedback, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In the NHS National GP Patient Survey results 2025 the service performed significantly better than local and national averages in several areas including access, for example:

• Patients found it easy to contact their GP practice by phone, with 64% responding to this question positively, compared with 60% across the Integrated Care Board (ICB) area and 53% nationally.
• Patients knew what the next step would be, with 93% responding positively to this question, compared with 81% across the ICB area and 83% nationally.
• Patients found reception and administration staff helpful, with 89% responding positively to this question compared with 82% across the ICB area and 83% nationally.
• Patients knew what the next steps would be after contacting their GP practice with 93% responding positively to this question, compared with 81% across the ICB area and 83% nationally.
• Patients felt their needs were met, with 96% responding positively to this question, compared with 89% across the ICB area and 90% nationally.

People could access the service in ways to suit their needs, for example online, in person and by telephone.The service provided vulnerable patients with longer appointments as needed such as those with a learning disability.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were 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 service had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. 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 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. For example, the service had an educational planning for the future event which incorporated support from clinical leaders, funeral directors, Age UK and a care coordinator. Feedback from the event was positive with 100% of respondents confirming they found the event helpful and would also attend a similar event.

The service had systems in place to reach out to relatives when a patient passed and sent condolences cards, in addition to this, patients received birthday cards when they turned sixteen. They had a tender love and care (TLC) register for patients with newly diagnosed terminal illness, and we saw that these patients’ care was discussed in meetings and patients were closely monitored.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The service maintained a palliative care register. This information was shared with other providers when necessary.