Cranbrook 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 assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. At this assessment, we rated the key question as Good. The service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Requests for appointments were allocated based on clinical needs. The practice understood their patient population. They identified and made changes to improve their service where required.

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 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. Staff treated people as individuals and with respect.Staff got to know people during regular appointments and offered care and treatment with a person-centred approach. They also provided longer appointments for people who had additional needs. For example, those living with a learning disability. A patient who was a veteran (veterans are people who has served for at least one day in the British Armed Forces) shared an example of how the practice recognised their special needs, including a tendency to delay seeking medical help. The practice provided timely care for the patient’s serious condition.

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.

Staff had allocated roles based on their specialised interests, experience, and training. This promoted coordinated care and continuity in areas like women’s health, diabetes, asthma and COPD (a long-term lung condition). We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. A community partner gave positive feedback saying “The practice has demonstrated a genuine commitment to responsive care, particularly for families in vulnerable circumstances. Their work with asylum-seeking families was both compassionate and effective, helping to ensure continuity of healthcare and integration into local support systems”.

The practice provided information that was tailored to individual needs. Staff evidenced on the patients’ electronic record if they had any communication or accessibility needs.This was usually gathered at registration but could be updated when appropriate.

Interpretation services were available for people who did not speak English as their first language. Patient information could be provided in different languages or larger font upon request. The practice’s website contained a variety of information to support and educate people includingadvice on healthy lifestyles and mental wellbeing. The PPG had identified and shared feedback with the practice that some website information was outdated. In response, the practice appointed an administrative staff member to update its website and social media, aiming to improve communication with people.

Information on how to complain was available via the practice website and complaint leaflets were available at the reception.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 as a result of people feedback, including complaints. The practice regularly collected people’s feedback through Friends and Family Test. Changes made as a result included converting a non-clinical room into a family-friendly waiting area with space for children to play while waiting for appointments. The practice also actively engaged with the PPG to understand people’s views. There had been changes in the PPG membership with recent recruitment to the group providing representation of the patient demographics which primarily consisted of families with young children and people of working age.

People could access appointments online, over the phone and in person. Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 56% of people said they found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone. The percentage of people who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 62%. These were in line with the national averages.

The practice recognised that some people had difficulty in access. The practice had engaged in the General Practice Improvement Programme (a programme which provides tailored support to GP services to make changes and improvements known as GPIP) and had made changes to improve access.The practice modified the triage system so people were now triaged based on clinical needs and urgency rather than the previous first come first served approach. The practice introduced measures to reduce missed appointments. For example, it began sending text messages with cancellation links to make it easier for people to cancel without calling. It also limited routine appointment bookings to a maximum of three weeks in advance, as longer waits were often associated with changes in people’s clinical needs and increased non-attendance. They also reviewed their clinical team’s skill mix. Nurse practitioners received additional training to expand the range of people they could see, allowing GPs to focus on more complex cases. To improve phone access, the practice introduced a cloud-based phone system in January 2025. This upgrade increased their call capacity, provided people with their queue position, and offered a call-back option.

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.

All staff had completed training in equality and diversity and the practice had a policy in place. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. The service had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.Interpretation services were available for people who did not speak English as their first language. The practice extended the waiting area to provide more space for wheelchair users. People with additional needs such as neurodiversity were able to arrange longer appointments at a quieter time of the day if needed. The practice could offer appointments for chronic condition reviews and cervical smears during extended hours on some evenings on weekdays and some Saturdays depending on people’s needs. People who were carers were listed on carer’s register to receive additional support such as carer assessment and influenza vaccination. Information for carers was available in the waiting area and on their website. The practice was an accredited veteran friendly practice. One of their patients who was a veteran commented: “The practice has the best veteran care I have ever experienced. The time the staff have spent researching and gaining a better understanding of veteran's needs is beyond what I have ever encountered”.

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. Clinical records were updated to reflect any actions or changes made to their care plans. This information was shared with other services when necessary. We reviewed 4 patient records which were coded as having a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision documented in their care record.One of them was incorrectly coded as having the DNACPR decision. The practice took immediate action to update and mark the DNACPR coding as in error.