Church Crescent 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 people were treated 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 79 (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 was exceptional at making 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.

Clinical records we reviewed reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. We reviewed a sample of clinical records for patients and saw that patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. Patients were involved in decisions about their care.

Patients we spoke with provided positive feedback about the service and told us that the service provided a first class, professional service with quick intervention. They told us that the lead doctor had an extremely good dialogue with patients, allowed them to express their views and discussed treatment options, making them aware of any risks. Patients told us that the lead doctor considered the needs of patients and made them comfortable with receiving care and treatment. We received feedback that the lead doctor went above and beyond to make sure that everything was safe and provided a gold standard service. We received feedback from a health professional who had used the service and had clients who had used the service. They told us that the lead doctor listened with an open mind, asked questions and built a rapport with patients where it had not been possible to do this elsewhere. We received feedback that the lead doctor built trusting relationships through skilled listening and a caring, consistent and professional response over time.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people. Care was flexible and supported choice and continuity. The service understood the health and care needs of people who chose to use the service. The service maintained professional integrity by taking account of individual needs and preferences while ensuring care was provided in line with current best practice and clinical guidance.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that met the individual needs of people who used the service. Staff communicated and provided information in ways that supported patients to understand their treatment. They gave patients details about their health and treatment options to enable informed decision-making. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

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.

The service sent a patient satisfaction survey to patients electronically after appointments inviting them to provide feedback online. The service completed patient satisfaction audits which documented that the service had received 100% positive reviews from patients who had left online feedback. The service had not received any complaints in relation to care and treatment provided but had a process in place to respond to complaints if received. The service demonstrated that it listened to the views of patients. The service conducted a capacity demand audit and amended its hours of opening to ensure that demand was being met.

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

We received feedback from patients who had used the service that there was timely access to initial assessment and treatment. We were told that the lead doctor provided home visits where this was required. The lead doctor had provided advice and had redirected patients to services to assist with the provision of care. The service’s website states that the telephone line was open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that same or next day appointments were available. Patients were able to book appointments online or by telephoning the service. Waiting times, delays and cancellations were minimal and managed appropriately. The service provided post appointment advice and a leaflet for patients. Patients were able to contact the service using the telephone line and there was a message on the answerphone for this system which provided advice for patients regarding what to do in an emergency.

Patients were asked at the time of booking an appointment whether any reasonable adjustments were required and this information was coded on the clinical records system. The service arranged for translation services and British Sign Language interpretation if required for appointments. A disability access risk assessment was completed in October 2025 and there were no noted actions for the service. The service is operated from the ground floor of a residential property and is fully accessible for wheelchair users.

The service actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. People were treated equally and without discrimination. The service understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The service used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service. The lead doctor triaged all appointment requests and made sure that patients were aware of the services that were offered and set expectations at this stage. Before providing treatment, when patients attended for a consultation, the lead doctor discussed with them the risks and benefits of any treatment and answered questions.

The service did not discuss with patients decisions related to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and patients would be referred to their NHS GP for ongoing discussions. If a patient had a DNACPR decision in place, the service would ask for a copy of this so that it could be added to their clinical record. People were provided with information about what to do if they required support post appointment.