Herstmonceux Integrative Health 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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC under a new provider in December 2022. 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.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were involved in planning for their care needs. However, it was noted that for some medicines, our clinical searches showed patients were not always informed of the risks.

As a new provider the service was developing an understanding of 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. They had established mechanisms for engaging with the community. The practice held a public meeting in April 2025 where it introduced itself as the new provider to the local population. The meeting was attended by 110 patients. The patient participation group told us the event provided a useful opportunity to hear about the different services provided and the difficulties the practice faced recruiting an additional GP. The practice planned to hold public meetings every 6 months.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

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 because of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it although policies, procedures and training for identifying and prioritising ‘same day’ care needed to be in place so that reception staff could safely and consistently direct patients to the appropriate clinician.

The results of the national GP patient survey indicated that patients found it easy to contact their practice and make an appointment. They could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Through our ‘Give Feedback on Care’ form 8 patients out of 113 reported difficulties getting an appointment. However, during our site visit, staff indicated increased frustration with the length of time patients had to wait for an appointment. We saw the next available pre-bookable nurse and GP appointments were in 6-8 weeks’ time. The practice told us this was due to the need to suspend the pre-bookable slots to allow the introduction of the new digital triage system which had to be postponed from June to August 2025. During this period urgent and on the day appointments were available so patient access was maintained. They told us digital triage system in August 2025 and that this would help alleviate the pressure on appointments and ensure patients were prioritised appropriately. They were also actively recruiting for an additional GP to increase appointment capacity.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance. The building was specifically designed to create a calm relaxed environment for patients with natural lighting and a non-clinical feel, which helped put patients who may be suffering from anxiety at ease as well as promote a sense of well-being. There were raised chairs in the waiting area to assist patients with joint and/or mobility problems.

Staff and leaders 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, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including in the voluntary sector, to address 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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or had limited access to the internet.

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.