Martlesham Heath Surgery

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

This is the first assessment for this service due to the legal entity change of this provider. This key question has been rated as good. We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and were provided with advice and support in a way they could understand, which included planning for the future. People knew how to give feedback and practice staff acted on this. The service was easy to access, and staff worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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. Feedback from people who used the service was positive and during long term condition reviews people felt staff understood their individual needs. People, and where appropriate, family members and carers were involved in care and treatment decisions.

The practice had arrangements in place to support person centred care. For example, people who were due a long-term condition review could book their appointment online or by telephone on a date and time to suit them.Clinical staff told us during consultations they discussed relevant information, listened to people’s concerns and expectations, identified people’s needs and preferences and agreed a plan of care together which suited the person.

Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The practice complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, which included avoiding discrimination and having regard for the needs of people with different protected characteristics.

The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of people registered at the practice. Practice leaders understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Systems were in place to ensure people were seen by an appropriate clinician, if needed.People could request to see a GP of their choice, although there may be a longer wait. Staff told us they tried to book people in with the same clinician for a follow up appointment for continuity. Clinicians could request to follow up people, based on their clinical needs to provide continuity of care. Feedback from people who used the service was positive regarding care provision and the majority of feedback was positive about continuity of care.

Leaders had a good understanding of the needs of the local population and could refer people, or people could self-refer, to a range of services, for example, physiotherapy, mental health wellbeing, and contraception and sexual health services. They planned COVID-19 and flu vaccination clinics and visited people who were housebound to administer these.

Partners we received feedback from had no concerns regarding the availability and provision of services.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We did not receive any concerns from people regarding not being able to access appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in a way that suited their needs.

Staff told us information was available to people in different formats, and it would be highlighted on the person’s record if they had any communication or accessibility needs. Some staff gave examples of information they had provided to people to aid their understanding of care and treatment options, for example easy read and large print information. The majority of staff had completed accessible information standard training.

Interpreter services were available for those people whose first language was not English, and for people with a hearing impairment. Staff told us they were aware of the arrangements in place to book an interpreter. A hearing loop was also available, although staff we spoke with were unsure if it was being used and how to use it. We raised this with practice leaders. After the site visit, evidence was submitted showing clear hearing loop notices and guidance had been shared with staff on its use. A recent quality improvement project resulted in improved written communication, personalised to their preferences, for people registered as blind or partially sighted. Their preferences for font size, type and spacing was highlighted on their clinical notes.

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.

People who provided feedback had no specific views or concerns in this area. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group told us their views were listened to and gave examples of changes made following people’s feedback.

Complaints information was available in the practice and on the practice website. The practice had received 31 complaints from April 2024 to March 2025, with themes regarding clinical treatment and communication.We reviewed a sample of complaints and found they had been managed in line with the practice’s policy. Complaints had been acknowledged, investigated in a timely way, people were given an apology and actions taken in response were shared. People were advised of the contact details of the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman if they wanted to escalate their complaint. Learning from complaints was evident, for example, a clinician was supported to reflect on their consultation and communication, and learn from this. The practice also recorded, reviewed and shared positive feedback and compliments received.

The practice undertook a website survey in November 2024, to obtain people’s views about the ease of use of the practice website. 75 responses were received. Feedback mainly focused on the appointment system, rather than the website generally, which led to continuing to raise awareness of the system for people, and for staff to continue to support people in using the system.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The majority of feedback we received from people was positive regarding access. We reviewed the National GP Patient Survey data, published in July 2025. For the access indicators, experience of contacting your GP practice on this occasion, was in line with the England average and contacting your GP practice by phone, was tending towards a positive statistical variation compared with the England average.

There were arrangements in place to review appointment utilisation data, to maximise the use of appointment times and ensure underused appointment times supported GP trainee learning, and supervised clinical work. Actions were also taken in response for example, admin staff helped to fill appointments with appropriate people and staff held daily team huddles to identify spare capacity and reassign as needed. Cloud based telephony had been introduced in 2024 which staff fed back had gone well. A range of data for example, the number and time of day of inbound and outbound calls, call backs requested and made, and average queue time were also monitored and reviewed to ensure the most efficient use of appointments.

Appointments were available on weekdays, between 8am to 6:30pm. Extended hours appointments were available until 8.30pm on 1 weekday at a nearby GP practice.The practice was responsive to the needs of people who were too ill or physically incapable of travelling to the practice and offered home visits. Staff told us people with the most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised. The practice had a duty clinician available every day for advice and support, as necessary.

Practice leaders knew the demographics of the people registered at the practice which included for example, age, diversity, deprivation and economic factors which impacted the health needs of their population. Leaders and staff 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.

Processes were in place to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants. Arrangements were in place for staff to engage with people who were more likely to experience inequalities in health and outcomes. This was usually by telephone with escalation arrangements to the duty clinician if repeated contact attempts were unsuccessful.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff told us they respected and appreciated people's backgrounds and cultural values, and had received training in equality and diversity. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

We received no specific feedback from people regarding their experiences for this quality statement.

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.

The practice had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) policy, which included arrangements, for example, for training, decision making, documentation and record keeping. A DNACPR and ReSPECT form audit had been completed in June and July 2025; people’s decisions had been reviewed and were visible in their record. We reviewed the records of 2 people who had a ReSPECT in place. These had been completed appropriately following national guidelines.

The practice maintained a register of people with palliative care needs and people at the end of their life. They had systems in place to support and review people, which included people who were housebound, and worked in partnership with other organisations. Clinical staff told us they attended regular multidisciplinary (MDT) team meetings where people who were receiving palliative and end of life care were discussed and reviewed, as appropriate. Minutes of meetings we reviewed confirmed this. Practice clinicians visited people in their own home, when appropriate.Staff could refer people at the end of their life, and their loved ones to the ‘Compassionate Companions’ service, who provided practical emotional and spiritual support to people in the local area.