Cannock Road Medical 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 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 Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

Feedback from patients reflected this with 90% of respondents to the 2025 GP Patient Survey stated they felt involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the national (91%) and local (90%) results.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Online triage was used with support provided by staff, who completed the forms for people who didn’t feel confident using it, as well as those who weren’t able to access the form.

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 that the providers worked with other services to meet the needs of its patients. The service employed different types of health professionals directly and through the Primary Care Network (PCN), so patients could receive more personalised care, such as a social prescriber and a dietitian.

Patients had access to longer opening hours in the evenings from Monday to Friday, as well as during the day on Saturdays.

In the latest National GP Patient Survey, 17% of people said they were able to see or speak to the health professional they preferred. This was lower than the national (40%) and the local (36%) results.

The service was able to demonstrate the supply of 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. The poster for the interpreter service required review as the information was displayed in English only.

Staff had completed training, understood and were able to give examples of when they would provide information that met Accessible Information Standards.

We saw examples of information being communicated to patients in different formats, such as information relating to the introduction of the online triage system.

Patients were informed how to access their care records and staff had been trained on General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) to ensure information was securely and safely managed.

National GP Patient Survey data showed 95% of respondents knew what the next step would be after contacting their GP practice, which was in line with the national (93%) and local (92%) results.

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.

Complaints were managed in line with the service policy. Learning from complaints was shared and discussed at staff meetings.

Patient feedback showed that people felt listened to and were given time during appointments to talk, this was reflected in the latest results of the National GP Patient Survey, where 81% of people said the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening to them during their last appointment. This is in line with the national (87%) and local (84%) results.

The service had conducted a patient survey to understand how well people were accessing the service. The results were being analysed at the time of the assessment. A staff survey had been conducted to identify how the workforce felt about their roles and the support they received.

There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG), after a successful relaunch in 2025, which met quarterly and were positive about being listened to.

The service supported people to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However there were some gaps in making sure access was fully inclusive and straightforward for all.

There were no designated disabled car parking spaces, which made access for disabled people difficult. The premises were accessed via automatic doors. Once inside the waiting area had space for wheelchairs and pushchairs, the internal doors were not automatic but staff assisted people when required.

Feedback from most patients was that they could access the service via phone, online or by visiting the premises without delay but some told us they had to make several contacts to get an appointment booked. National GP Patient Survey data showed the practice was in line with national and local results. For example 46% of respondents found it easy to contact the service by phone, which was in line with national (53%) and local averages (48%).

The National survey results also showed 73% of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last GP appointment, which was above the national result of 67% and local result of 61%.

The service website had a function to select another language, however the options did not include the most used languages recorded in the area after English. There were no key information posters or signage in alternative language or other formats to suit people with learning difficulties, such as easy read and picture format. Staff were confident in how they could support personal preferences and were able to demonstrate how they would provide information when requested in alternative formats.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience in equality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. Staff treated people fairly and without discrimination, and they could give examples of how they adapted care when needed. Leaders looked for ways to remove barriers that might affect people’s experience and worked with local organisations to reduce health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of inclusive care and supported fair outcomes for everyone. The provider had systems to help people register with the practice, including those in vulnerable situations.

The service used templates to invite people with learning disabilities for health checks and to record the results. These templates were created with support from the local learning disability team to make communication easier and information clearer.

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 review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This information was shared with other services when necessary.

There was a palliative care protocol in place to ensure a consistent approach to the care of people with a life limiting condition which also included a medication template to ensure the correct information was recorded and avoid delays in care.

We reviewed decision records relating to palliative care and resuscitation. All CPR and ReSPECT (a process of documenting personal choices for clinical care and treatment) decisions were recorded correctly. In the sample reviewed we saw documentation available electronically, decisions flagged and mental capacity recorded.