Village 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

Leaders understood the challenges to patient access and services were being designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The provider prioritised, allocated resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access.

This service scored 71 (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.

The practice told us that they regularly involved patients in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment that meets their needs. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, deprivation of liberty safeguarding and mental capacity.

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.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP National Patient Survey were in line with local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 82% say the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the local average of 82% and slightly below the national average of 86%,

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making 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 practice had patients registered from a range of local nursing homes within the PCN. There was a total of 239 patients in 6 care homes and 229 were registered with the practice. We sought feedback from some of the care homes regarding the GP service provided and we received positive feedback from the majority of homes we spoke with. They stated they valued their professional working relationship, highlighted the accessibility to clinical staff when needed with a dedicated emergency telephone number. Regular ward rounds were held, however one of the homes commented on the difficulty in getting home visits. The clinical staff supported the patients families, reviewed DNACPR forms, regularly reviewed medicines and provided clinical advice to their staff.

The practice understood the needs of its local population and were taking action to develop services in response to those needs. Through the PCN, the practice staff were able to offer patients access to other services such as social prescribing, physiotherapy and mental health nurse to support their overall health and wellbeing. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

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 practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language.

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for patients to support them to understand how to access services.

The practice had a regular newsletter in place to provide information to patients on any changes at the practice, services available and local initiatives.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed how to access their care records.

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 reviewed 4 complaints and found they were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person or via the practice website. A yearly audit was carried out to identify trends and implement improvements to the quality of services provided.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 84% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the local average of 84% and the national average of 87%.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. Evidence provided showed that between June to August 2025 the practice had received 182 responses. A total of 115 people had rated the practice as very good or good and 18 responses had rated them as poor or very poor. Some of the positive comments the practice had received included staff were helpful and efficient. Negative comments highlighted waiting times at practice when attending an appointment and difficulty in getting appointments.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment people received.

There was a patient participation group (PPG), in place and meetings were held every 3 months. The leadership team told us they were actively trying to encourage patients to join, and we saw evidence to promote the PPG in the reception area in the practice newsletter.

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

The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as complaints and via informal feedback from patients. The GP national patient survey showed 30% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was below the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%.

The practice had completed an inhouse survey between June 2025 and August 2025. A total of 343 people had responded. The practice had gathered patient feedback in relation to accessing the practice by telephone. The results showed 30% of patients found it extremely easy and 26% fairly easy.

The practice had an action plan in place to improve telephone access. This included a call back facility which was now in use and reduced the waiting time for patients trying to get through to the practice. Data provided showed monthly reviews of the telephone system were carried out. For example: In September 2025 the practice received 3,681 calls with 92% of calls being answered within an average waiting time of 2 minutes 28 seconds. Information provided also showed that over the last 2 months the practice generated a list of calls they failed to answer, and staff were tasked to follow up on the missed calls.

Patients could access appointments by phone and online. The practice used a sign-posting triage system where reception staff would ask the patient for enough information to make a decision regarding which clinician was appropriate for them to see. Patients were given the option of a face to face or telephone appointment. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact 111. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff for example nurses and a pharmacist. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and at the weekend through an arrangement with other local GP practices.

The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other appropriate services.

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.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place and access to interpreters was available. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability with designated parking spaces.

The provider 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 with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

People we spoke with on the day of assessment was positive about the services provided. 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.

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.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making and had access to policies to support them. We were told that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings to share and discuss information relating to patient care and treatment, for example, those on the practice palliative care register.

There were systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date in training relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. We found that staff had completed the required training.

There were registers held for those patients who were vulnerable who were on the palliative care register or at the end of their life. We found that clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making and saw that consent was documented.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We reviewed a random sample of 3 clinical records of people who had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) form in place and found they were relevant, completed and available within the clinical record.