Cherry Tree 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 that the practice met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

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 decisions about their care. The practice provided information that patients could understand. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination through making reasonable adjustments when needed. Patients received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. Feedback we received from patients as part of this assessment was positive regarding accessing services at the practice. We also noted that positive feedback via the National GP Patient Survey had been consistently above average for the previous 4 years and that this had been recognised and acknowledged by commissioners of the service.

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 practice made sure patients 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 supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

Results from the GP Patient Survey (2025) confirmed that 93% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment (87% local and national average, national average).

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of their patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other practices to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its practices to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, they worked with the primary care network and an independent provider to offer long term condition reviews to housebound patients. In addition, the practice worked with the local federation and other stakeholders to offer patients access additional services such as micro suction, phlebotomy and women’s healthcare.

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

Patients at the practice could access support from both clinical and non-clinical bilingual staff members. In addition, the practice had access to interpreters, including British Sign Language. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Information for patients was available on the practice website, and this could be viewed in different languages and formats to support individual needs.

The practice made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Although we found some issues with the complaints process (referred to earlier and later in the report), we saw complaints were responded to within appropriate timescales. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, allocation of additional disabled parking spaces at Cherry Tree Surgery and the introduction of a cloud-based telephony system to improve patient experience when contacting the practice by phone.

The practice ensured that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Responses to the National GP Patient Survey were consistently higher than local and national averages regarding accessing services. For example, in the most recent survey, 80% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by phone (local average 51%, national average 53%), 70% found it easy to contact the practice using their website (local average 50%, national average 51%), 60% found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App (local and national average 49%), 81% were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment (local average 55%, national average 54%) and 88% felt they waited the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment (local average 69%, national average 67%).

We noted that patient satisfaction in relation to access had been consistently higher than local and national average for the past 4 years.

During our site visit, we also heard how the practice had continued to offer face to face appointments for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to ensure patients could access services.

Patients could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

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.

Patients 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. For example, there was a system in place to review all new cancer diagnoses, and regular recalls were scheduled to ensure appropriate support was provided.

Our records review showed patients were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other practices when necessary.

The clinical team routinely carried out reviews of all deaths to ensure appropriate care and support had been provided and identify any areas of good practice or lessons to be learned.