Central Clinic

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 75 (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.

In the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey, 88% of respondents said they felt their needs were met during their last appointment, which was in line with the local average of 88%, but slightly below the national average of 90%. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of clinicians. The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. The practice listened to patient feedback and took on board any actions. The patient participation group (PPG) were positive about the practice taking on board patient feedback and assured us any suggestions were taken seriously to improve patient 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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the practice was part of a Primary Care Network (PCN), which offered extended access and access to a range professionals including pharmacist, care coordinator, physician associate, physiotherapist, mental health practitioner, dietician, and health coach.

The practice also worked with a health visitor, local hospice, palliative nurses and the district nursing team. Regular meetings were held to review the needs of people who were approaching the end of their lives.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services, and information was available on the website in a range of different languages. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Within the practice waiting area, a hearing loop facility was available for patients with hearing impairments and a range of health and wellbeing leaflets and posters were on display for patient information.

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 saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) who confirmed that the practice had engaged with them, listened to them, and acted on their feedback. For example, the introduction of extended access appointments on Saturdays and targeted support for patients experiencing digital exclusion, particularly those facing difficulties accessing the NHS App.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice was open from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday, and patients had access to out-of-hours services. Extended access was available every Saturday and the website also provided information on accessibility for the out of hours sites.

The site was accessible to people with additional needs including disabled and pram access. Extended appointments were available for people with a learning disability. People could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and patients had access to extended hours.

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.

Patient survey results regarding contact with the practice were mixed. Feedback on the helpfulness of reception staff was 80% which was above the local average of 79% and slightly below the national average of 83%. Ease of telephone access scored 54% which was higher than the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%. However, digital contact methods such as through the practice website was 41% which was below the local average of 46% and the national average of 51%. In addition, result for contacting the practice using the NHS App was below the local average of 46% and the national average of 49%. The practice recognised that it serves an area of high deprivation and had already identified challenges related to digital exclusion. In response, plans were in place to host a 'Digital Day' to support patients in accessing online services more effectively.

Feedback provided to the CQC was positive, with patients reporting that staff treated them equally and without discrimination. Leaders demonstrated a proactive approach to identifying and addressing barriers to care, working collaboratively with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to tackle health inequalities.

Staff recognised the importance of delivering a positive patient experience and achieving meaningful outcomes, which were kept under regular review. Patients were encouraged to share their views via the practice website or by contacting the practice directly. Friends and Family Test data from August 2025 showed that 88% of patients rated their overall experience of the practice as ‘good’ or ‘very good’

The practice was registered as a Safe Surgery and had established inclusive registration processes to ensure equitable access to care. These processes enabled individuals in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness and members of the Traveller community to register at the practice without barriers.

The practice complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with protected characteristics, and making reasonable adjustments to support equitable access.

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.