Browney House 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.

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

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 ensured individuals were at the centre of their care and treatment decisions, working in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs.

The practice provided person-centred care and tailored services to meet individual needs and preferences. Leaders told us that patients with learning disabilities had flags recorded on the clinical system to alert staff and guide them in delivering personalised support. Staff made reasonable adjustments to care delivery. For example, leaders told us they arranged for a District Nurse to visit a patient at home due to specific anxieties around attending the clinic for tests.Patients also requested longer or later appointments when needed.

Leaders also told us that staff referred patients to social prescribers where appropriate, to support social, emotional, and practical needs.

During the assessment, we observed reception staff offering patients a choice between telephone and face-to-face appointments, enabling them to access care in a way that suited their individual preferences. Patients with hearing impairments or communication barriers were flagged on the clinical system, and staff adapted their approach to ensure their needs were met.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of its local community and worked in partnership with other organisations to ensure care was joined-up, flexible, and supported choice and continuity.

The practice held positive relationships with an aligned care home, contributing to coordinated care for residents. The care home told us they were working with the practice to explore ways of reducing waste and cost, in relation to medications, as part of efforts to improve efficiency and sustainability in service delivery.

Patients had access to continuity of care when required, supported by systems to identify and recall individuals for long-term condition reviews. Staff worked with community services, including District Nursing teams, to ensure care was delivered in the most appropriate setting. The practice also collaborated with its Primary Care Network (PCN) to support integrated service delivery.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services to support patients whose first language was not English, ensuring effective communication. It also used a range of communication channels, including social media, leaflets, its website, and engagement with the Patient Participation Group (PPG), to share information and updates with the community. The practice had processes in place to identify, record, and meet patients’ individual communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Relevant information was recorded and coded within the clinical system, with alerts used to ensure staff were aware of any specific requirements, enabling personalised care.

The service provided opportunities for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People were involved in decisions about their care and were informed about changes made as a result of their feedback. Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy, and learning from complaints was evident. Staff were able to describe changes made in response to patient feedback, including complaints.

According to the NHS England National GP Patient Survey 2025, 93% of respondents said they were involved in decisions about their care as much as they wanted to be,compared to the national average of 91%.

Although response rates to the Friends and Family Test (FFT) were low, leaders acknowledged this and shared plans to improve engagement. Following the site visit, the practice told us they were exploring ways to increase responses by linking the FFT questionnaire to patient appointments. This would automatically send a text message with a link to patients, encouraging feedback.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Extended access appointments were available, supporting patients who required flexibility outside of core hours.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS) demonstrated that patients reported better-than-average access compared with national benchmarks. Specifically, 73% of patients found it easy to contact the practice online, compared with the national average of 51%. Additionally, 68% found it easy to contact the practice by phone (national average 53%), and 78% were offered a choice of appointment time or day (national average 54%). Overall, 85% of patients reported a good experience of contacting the practice, significantly above the national average of 70%.

The practice had systems in place to manage both routine and urgent appointments. Patients who contacted the practice when no appointments were available could be added to a waiting list and contacted if a slot became available within 24 hours. Staff told us this system worked well and helped optimise appointment use. Patients could also book appointments up to 2 weeks in advance. Same-day emergency slots were available daily, with GPs assessing urgency to allocate these appropriately.

The premises had limited on-site parking, but 2 designated disabled bays were available. While the entrance did not have automatic doors, a functional doorbell was in place to assist patients with mobility needs. Although there was no hearing loop available, patients with sensory needs could request quiet spaces, and private areas were provided for confidential discussions.

In addition, 2 staff members had completed care navigation training to help direct patients to the most appropriate service. However, there was no visible signage or information available to inform patients about access to interpreter services.

Staff and leaders actively listened to and responded to the needs of people most likely to experience inequality in their care, experience, or outcomes. Care, support, and treatment were tailored to meet individual circumstances and promote equitable access.

Leaders explained that the practice had a flexible registration procedure to accommodate individuals facing barriers to accessing healthcare services, such as those with no fixed address or asylum seekers. This included accepting alternative forms of identification or proof of address, waiving administrative requirements, and offering support with completing registration forms.

Staff demonstrated an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in patients’ experiences. Interpreters were available to support patients whose first language was not English, helping to ensure effective communication and informed decision-making. Appointment adjustments were also made where needed, such as offering longer consultations or scheduling appointments at the end of the day to better suit individual needs.

While the service supported people to plan for important life changes, including end-of-life care, there were areas where oversight and consistency required improvement. Staff told us that patients were encouraged to consider their wishes around cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR), and this information was shared with other services when needed.

However, DNACPR oversight required improvement. Although the practice team were aware of which patients had DNACPR orders in place, forms were not consistently scanned into patient records, and reviews relied on nurse awareness rather than a formal process.

Following the assessment, leaders told us that a new process was being implemented to strengthen oversight. This included ensuring DNACPRs are added to patient records, shared with appropriate services, and supported by recall prompts for regular review.