Cherry Tree Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other practices to achieve this.

This is the first inspection for this practice since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

Patients were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving between services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

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 practice made sure patient’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Patient feedback we received as part of the assessment process regarding how the practice worked with them to assess their needs was positive.

People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual and cultural needs. For example, results from the GP Patient Survey (2025) confirmed that 97% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment (local and national average 90%).

Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a interpreter to be present. Staff checked patient’s health, care, and wellbeing needs during health reviews. Clinical staff used templates when conducting care reviews to support the review of their patient’s wider health and wellbeing.

The provider had effective systems to identify patients with previously undiagnosed conditions.

Staff could refer patients with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber.

The practice had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Staff we spoke with, and received feedback from, were able to give examples of significant events, complaints and learning as a result of these. Information about how to raise a complaint was available on the practice website and in the practice. We found some issues with the complaints process. For example, we noted that the information on the practice website needed to be updated to make clear to patients that complaints could be directed to the practice in writing. We reviewed 2 complaints during our site visit and found that the responses did not include signposting to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and the complaints policy contained out of date information. These issues were addressed during our assessment. We also found that there were dual systems in place for logging significant events, and it was not clear who had oversight of this process. We received evidence from the practice following our assessment to demonstrate that improvements had been made to streamline this process, this included a dedicated member of the administrative team leading on the process.

The practice worked well across teams and practices to support people. Information was shared between services via the clinical system.

Staff had access to the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan, and deliver care, treatment, and support. The practice worked with other practices to ensure continuity of care. For example, the clinical staff received guidance from a specialist nurse, which enabled them better support patients with a learning disability.

GPs at the practice also worked closely with a local community burial service to ensure faith burials were carried out within a 24-hour timescale. This included being accessible to support the service on evening and weekends alongside during practice hours.

The practice supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The practice supported them to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. For example, the practice utilised local schemes such as the hospital avoidance scheme which provided rapid response for patients at risk of falls and those requiring additional support.

Staff focussed on identifying risks to patients’ health, including those in the last 12 months of their lives, patients at risk of developing a long-term condition and those with caring responsibilities. For example, any patients with a new cancer diagnosis were reviewed by the practice and regular recalls added to the clinical system to provide care and support.

The practice hosted an in-house ultrasound service which was available to all patients. Ultrasound results were then available to the clinicians immediately following the scan.

Staff supported national priorities and initiatives to improve population health, including stopping smoking and tackling obesity.

The practice had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Staff we spoke with, and received feedback from, were able to give examples of significant events, complaints and learning as a result of these. Information about how to raise a complaint was available on the practice website and in the practice. We found some issues with the complaints process. For example, we noted that the information on the practice website needed to be updated to make clear to patients that complaints could be directed to the practice in writing. We reviewed 2 complaints during our site visit and found that the responses did not include signposting to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and the complaints policy contained out of date information. These issues were addressed during our assessment. We also found that there were dual systems in place for logging significant events, and it was not clear who had oversight of this process. We received evidence from the practice following our assessment to demonstrate that improvements had been made to streamline this process, this included a dedicated member of the administrative team leading on the process.

The practice told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent. Capacity and consent were clearly recorded. Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation, and these were stored within ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms for individual patients.