Ravenscroft 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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

We rated this key question as good. People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights.

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.

Score: 3

The practice mostly made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. This was demonstrated by the GP national patient survey which found that 94% of patients who responded had definitely or to some extent confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. The practice results were in line with local and national averages. The practice provided meeting minutes that showed they had briefly reviewed the patients’ feedback but had not yet looked at ways of making improvements. Longer appointments were available for patients with complex needs and home visit requests were available.

The staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of their patients and the practice had developed the service in response to those needs. Alerts were added to patient records so staff could identify additional needs or preferences.

Score: 3

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 tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. The service was actively involved in their local primary care network (PCN), where they worked with other services to improve local health inequalities. The practice worked in partnership with the PCN pharmacist and social prescriber to deliver more services to patients. Patients could book appointments online, in person or by telephone, longer appointments were offered to those with more complex needs. Patients could also be seen at the PCN hub after 6.30pm and on weekends.

Score: 3

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There were policies and procedures for staff to follow to ensure people had information that was 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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

Data from the GP Patient survey showed that 67% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using their website.

Score: 3

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff we spoke to knew how patients could make a complaint or provide feedback.They mostly involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result, however patients were not always informed of any changes to their care and treatment following alerts.

We found people had different options to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the national GP patient survey.

Score: 3

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments 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 was a designated private area for breastfeeding mothers if they needed it.

The practice recognised that their phone lines were often busy and told us of steps put in place to ensure call waiting times were reduced. They provided a report dated June 2025 from their telephone service provider which they received monthly that showed of the 2,571 inbound calls received for the month 1,930 were answered and of the 2,015 calls that had been placed in the queue, 1,927 were answered from the queue (95.6%) which we were told was an improvement on previous months.

Data from the GP Patient survey showed that 77% of patients had a positive experience of contacting the GP practice and 67% of patient found it generally easy to contact their GP practice on the phone, both of which were in line with local averages.

Score: 3

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.

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, 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. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English.

Score: 3

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.