Cradley 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

We looked for evidence the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. This is the first inspection for responsive in this service since a change to its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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 engaged in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their 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. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, the practice provided free in-house services such as leg ulcer dressing and ear microsuction, so people did not have to travel to access these services. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were 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, 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. For example, reception staff used a standardised greeting when speaking with people which was warm and welcoming.

Leaders and staff demonstrated an outstanding commitment to ensuring people could access high‑quality care, support and treatment precisely when they needed it. Access arrangements were thoughtfully tailored to meet individual needs, with appointments offered online, face‑to‑face and by telephone. National GP Patient Survey results evidenced exceptional performance, with access scores well above the national average by approximately 50%. Notably, 90% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by phone, 95% found it easy to contact the practice via its website, and 91% reported ease of access through the NHS App.

The provider used this data proactively to drive continuous improvement and further enhance accessibility. Where additional needs were identified, the practice responded with meaningful and personalised adjustments, including offering extended appointments for people with a learning disability. This approach ensured continuity of care by enabling patients to consistently see the same healthcare professional, supporting positive experiences and improved health outcomes. Carers were offered appointments at a time which suited them to avoid having a detrimental impact on the person being cared for.

Leaders and staff fully considered the needs of people, with treatment rooms located on the ground floor, a doorbell system to support those requiring assistance at the entrance, and clear arrangements for accessibility. While the practice did not have an onsite car park, patients were able to use a car park directly opposite, with convenient roadside parking also available. People with disabilities could be safely dropped off at the front of the practice. Recognising the village’s limited bus service, the practice scheduled appointments to align with local bus timetables.

In addition, the practice funded a range of free services not typically available within GP settings, significantly reducing the need for patients to travel long distances. These services included 24‑hour blood pressure monitoring, ear microsuction, leg ulcer care, lung function testing, fertility testing and electrocardiograms (a non‑invasive test used to assess heart rhythm and electrical activity).

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, 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. 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 have access to the internet.

People were proactively supported to plan for significant life changes, ensuring they had the time and information needed to make well‑informed decisions about their future, including at the end of life. Our review of patient records showed people were sensitively and consistently supported to consider and record their end‑of‑life wishes, including decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Leaders and staff had recently undertaken a focused review of the completion of ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) documents. This is an NHS‑backed, patient centred emergency care plan developed through meaningful conversations between people and clinicians to guide care where individuals are unable to make decisions themselves. As a result of this review and targeted improvements, the practice increased the number of completed ReSPECT forms by 50%.