The Sidings 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 the last inspection we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this inspection the rating has stayed the same.

At our visit in February 2025 issues were identified related to appointment availability, communication with other providers and key stakeholders. Complaints had not been managed according to the providers policy and it was unclear how many complaints had been received, what the contents were and what actions had been taken. Learning had not always been shared appropriately, and decisions about any changes or potential improvements had not always been taken with people involved with the issues or with appropriate skills and knowledge.

At our visit in April 2025 the provider had introduced improvements to the way appointments were managed to improve access for patients. They had started to work with other providers and key stakeholders to improve communication and patient care for patients in other care facilities. The management of complaints had been reviewed with changes to the systems and processes made to manage them in line with policy. Learning was identified by appropriately skilled staff and shared with the staff.

The service was in breach of legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment and governance.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At our visit in February 2025, patients told us they found it difficult to access same day appointments and there were long waits for routine appointments.

Members of the PPG told us they did not feel the practice listened to the patient voice brought by the group.

At our visit in April 2025, we saw evidence changes had been made to the appointment process and this had led to improvements in access to appointments. This included all patients requiring urgent appointments being offered one on the day of request and shorter waiting times for routine appointments within the providers policy requirements.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed the practice was broadly in line with local and national averages for involving people in their care and decision making.

The practice PPG were more positive about the practice and told us the provider was now more open and involved with the group. A senior member of the management attended the meetings and was responsive to discussions linked to patients’ care and concerns.

People could receive the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary.

We saw evidence recent changes had made improvements to patients’ ability to make appropriate appointments to suit their needs. These changes had not been in place long enough to evidence sustainability and impact on patient care at the time of our assessment.

At our visit in February 2025 the provider did not fully understand the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined up and flexible. Integration with services working in partnership was not always effective.

Peoples’ care, support and treatment did not always meet their assessed needs. Services did not always function in a co-ordinated and responsive way.

At our visit in April 2025 we saw evidence that the practice was taking steps to improve the way it worked in partnership with other services. The practice had begun to review its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, building relationships with pregnant women early to promote the take up of childhood immunisations and meetings with other care providers had commenced to understand the needs of their patients and clients more fully.

This work is ongoing at the time of our assessment and the impact on patient care was not evidenced.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had access to interpreter and translation services and a hearing loop. Information in an easy read format was available for those who needed it.

A range of information on aspect of health for all ages and local support groups was on display. Multiple health information leaflets were available in a range of languages used within the area.

People know how to access their health and care records and decide which personal information can be shared with other people.

At our inspection in February 2024 staff told us they had not found it easy to raise concerns or complaints and were worried about doing so. They told us their views and experiences had not always been taken fully on board, investigated and responded to thoroughly in a timely way. They told us sharing of the outcomes of the feedback or concerns was inconsistent and sometimes non-existent.

We found complaints had been managed inconsistently at a local level and not in line with the providers policy. The provider was unaware of the local changes made in how complaints were managed. This meant they did not have a full understanding of the amount or content of complaints received at the practice or if they had been investigated and responded to or resolved.

Learning from complaints and concerns was not always identified and when it was, it was not consistently shared to improve practice.

At our visit in April 2025 changes made by the provider in processes, leadership and governance meant staff now told us they felt able to raise concerns and complaints and staff were confident they would be listened to and investigated.

The provider had carried out a full review of all the practices systems to identify the complaints received and what actions had been taken. This led to identification of a backlog of complaints that required action. A strategic response to managing the backlog was put in place. Dedicated provider staff, external to the practice, were tasked with managing the process to respond to patients and resolve the backlog. Management of complaints is now in line with provider policy and has been returned to the practice. An identified complaints lead is now in place at the practice.

Monitoring of complaints received and the management of them is now included in the quality dashboard to monitor amount received, timely response and to identify trends and themes, reported monthly to the senior leadership team (SLT).

Learning is now identified and shared, it is viewed as an opportunity for improvement and staff can give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. This is included in meetings an evidenced in minutes of the meetings

Recent and ongoing changes in systems and processes have shown initial improvements in how the practice listens to people. The sustainability of the improvements cannot be measured at the time of our report as the changes have not been in place long enough to become embedded in normal working practice.

The National GP Patient Survey results for 2025 indicated that 17% of respondents to the survey responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, compared to the national average of 53% and 39% of respondents to survey responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice compared to the national average of 68%. The results in the overall experience of contacting the practice had improved from 24% in 2024.

At our inspection in February 2024 we were told high staff turnover and vacancies, particularly within the administration team, had meant significant challenges for the remaining staff to provide appropriate timely responses to calls and attempts of patients to contact the practice.

Patients and staff told us access to appointments at the practice was not timely and long waits for routine appointments were usual. We saw evidence of this when we reviewed the clinical systems with waiting times outside the providers policy expectations. Local changes in processes to how appointments were managed and high staff vacancy rates had impacted on the availability of appointments. The provider was unaware of the local changes or impact of vacancy rates at the time of our visit.

At our visit in April 2025 we saw changes had made to how appointments were managed and staff recruitment was undertaken to significantly increase staff capacity. Recruitment to the administration team was prioritised and whilst successful was continuing to fill further vacancies and support further changes in processes.

Review of the clinical system evidenced patient waiting times for appointments had improved and showed appointments for patients triaged as urgent were available on the day and routine appointments were available within the providers policy expectations. Waiting times were now monitored using the quality dashboard and reported at the provider level monthly governance meeting.

The practice offered appointments by telephone and in person by visiting the practice. Appointments could be booked on line, by telephone and in person at the practice. Extended access appointments (evenings and weekends) were available at other local practices.

The practice was registered as a Veteran Friendly Practice to offer further support to patients and families leaving the military environment.

Whilst recent changes had delivered improvements more staff were required with certain specific skills to continue and sustain the improvement process. The sustainability of the new processes and impact on access could not be fully assessed at the time of our assessment.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, appointments are available at quiet times for vulnerable people and extended appointment can be made for complex cases.

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 could leave feedback via the NHS website, the practice website, the Friends and Family test or in person.

There were systems in place to support patients who faced communication barriers to access treatment, including those who might be digitally excluded. For example, interpreter services were available for patients whose first language was not English, hearing loop availability for patients with impaired hearing, reception staff would assist any patient face to face, and leaflets were available to be downloaded in the most commonly spoken local languages.

People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews.

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, such as palliative care and community teams.

At our visit in February 2025 care home staff we spoke with told us the practice was not always responsive to requests for end of life reviews in a timely way. This had led to occasions when appropriate medicines had not been in place when required at the end of life despite the patient having made plans for this stage of their life.

At our visit in April 2025 the provider had started to improve communication and were looking at ways to improve their response times.

Whilst recent changes had delivered improvements. The sustainability of the new processes and impact could not be fully assessed at the time of our assessment.