Victoria 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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service acknowledged improvements were required for people to access the service and they were working to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training, feedback and targeted programmes of work for the most vulnerable such as the homeless. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

The service was previously found to be in breach of legal regulation in relation to complaints not always being responded to appropriately or used to improve the quality of care.

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.

Care plans reflected 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.

Results from the national GP patient survey published in 2025, included 88% of people who use this service said they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment; compared to the local average of 92% and the national average of 91%.

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 practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had systems in place to support people of no fixed abode and had established effective care pathways for people to access outreach provision.

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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed how to access their care records.

The service had established and effective systems in place to encourage and support 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 well documented, discussed and shared with all staff. Staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, a complaint was received relating to a prescribing error. Staff investigated it and identified the concern as a learning event. This was discussed at a clinical meeting in October 2024 where staff were reminded to check contraindications when adding and issuing medication.

The provider was aware improvements were required to ensure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Results from the national GP patient survey published in 2025, included that 23% of people who used the service found it easy or fairly easy to access the service. This is below the local average of 50% and national average of 53%. However, improvements in patient experiences were seen in the recent larger practice access survey of 4424 people. Their survey of people who had attended the practice in September 2025 found 42% of respondents had found it very easy or fairly easy to contact the practice by the telephone.

The provider actively reviewed access for patients, monitoring DNA (Did Not Attend) rates and telephone waiting times to identify and respond to changes in demand. The practice’s own data showed a reduction in waiting times for people on the telephone.

People had access to weekend appointments, out of hours appointments and the provider ensured they protected appointments for patients referred to them by NHS 111. Extended appointments were available for people with a learning disability. 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 were lifts to assist people to access the upper floors of their main surgery.

Staff and leaders actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was tailored in response to this.

Results from the national GP patient survey published in 2025, included 88% of people who used the service felt that their needs had been met. This was comparable with the local and national averages of 91% and 90%.

The practice conducted monthly telephone audits of their administrative team to assess patient experiences and the quality of care navigation. The practice had introduced video consultations to support patients in care homes to improve their experience of the service.

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 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.

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.