Civic Medical Centre

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. This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated 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.

People told us they were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

Staff at all levels spoke about their commitment to helping people and meeting their needs. The reception team members said they came to know the patients with higher needs and took time to engage and support them when they telephoned or attended the practice.

Leaders described how they linked with other health care and social services professionals for patients with more complex conditions. Staff and leaders told us they would facilitate continuity of care for non-urgent issues and they recognised the importance of continuity for patients with more complex conditions and towards the end of life. They also informed us they had regular discussions with local pharmacies, who were involved in treating minor illnesses, to ensure the patient was receiving the most appropriate treatment in the community.

Partner organisations did not provide feedback about the practice for this assessment.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. There were mechanisms in place to facilitate effective care provision, integration and continuity of care. Staff had access to clear referral pathways and templates. People were able to access a first-contact physiotherapist directly through the practice. (This post was funded by the primary care network).

People told us clinicians were thorough and explained information in a way they could understand. Some patients told us that staff explained information in a language they could easily understand which made it easier for them to make decisions about their care.

Many staff were multi-lingual and this helped support communication with patients. Formal translation services were also available and, any requirement was noted in the patient record so the interpreter could be booked in advance. Staff told us the system to book an interpreter was straightforward and worked well.

The practice provided information in a variety of forms and had a comprehensive website explaining how to access services including appointments, fit notes and how to register with the practice. The practice team had created a welcome video (with closed captions) introducing themselves and the services they offered which was accessible on the website front page. People could submit an accessible information questionnaire via the website specifying any communications needs. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages on request. The practice 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.

The results from the 2024 National GP Patient Survey showed that 79% of respondents reported that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. The average result on this indicator for all practices in Brent was 85%.

Staff informed us that complaints were listened and responded to and used to improve the quality of care.

There was a clear complaints policy and process and we saw evidence that the staff and leaders followed the process when people made a complaint about the service.

People participating in the assessment were positive about the availability of appointments. They told us appointments could be requested via an online consultation service, over the phone or in person to ensure that those who did not have access to digital services were not excluded. The results of the National GP Patient Survey (2024) showed that the practice was scoring in line with the national and local averages for indicators on accessibility. For example, 58% of respondents found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone. (The national average for this question was 50%).

Staff told us they had enough appointments to enable people to be seen in a timely way according to need. People were able to access the service the same day for more urgent conditions.

The practice was part of a national initiative to tackle health inequalities in the local community. This included taking steps to tackle barriers to access faced by people in vulnerable circumstances, including migrants, in accessing healthcare. The practice had also redesigned its website to make the service more accessible after receiving critical feedback about this. For example, it had simplified the online system that patients could use to request an appointment (or other type of help) to make this as easy as possible.

Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff described various tools they used to support equity of experience. For example, the reception team told us that the interpreting service was easy to arrange and worked well for people.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. There were systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. There were systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service.

People told us they had appropriate support and time to make decisions.

Staff supported patients to make decisions and where appropriate, assessed and recorded a patient’s mental capacity to make a decision. This information was shared with other services when necessary.

Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were made in line with relevant legislation and showed that, where possible, the patient’s views had been sought and respected. We noted that DNACPR decisions for patients residing at a local care home were recorded on a template provided by the care home. These templates did not include the reason for the DNACPR decision however, the GP had clearly documented the reasons within the patient record. The lead GP informed us they would raise this with the care home so that the information on the template could be improved.