River Brook Medical Centre

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 service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

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

This service scored 71 (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 ensured people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked in partnership with individuals to respond to changes in their needs.

Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Results from the latest National GP Patient Survey showed that 71% of respondents responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice against a national average of 69%. The practice listened to patient feedback and used it to identify areas for improvement and, made appropriate changes to enhance the quality of care provided. Patient feedback was obtained by face-to-face contact, online, surveys and through written feedback boxes in the waiting areas.

Information about patients’ care and treatment needs were available and shared appropriately between services when required.

Services were tailored to meet the diverse needs of the population, with a focus on promoting health education and preventative care initiatives. The importance of continuity was evident in the way services were delivered. For example, staff sought to ensure that people with learning disabilities or autism were able to see the same doctor whenever possible. This supported continuity of care by helping to build trusting relationships, reduce anxiety, and improve communication. It also enabled clinicians to develop a better understanding of individuals' needs and supported coordinated care provision. Systems were in place to alert staff to any specific safety or clinical needs, ensuring that patients received appropriate and coordinated care. We saw that patients knew staff and could ask for a particular staff member should they wish to see them and it was possible with regards to staff availability.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in reception areas. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language (BSL). Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). 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.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 87% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last appointment against a national average of 85%.

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 patient feedback, including complaints. The provider held a quarterly thematic review to understand potential patterns of complaints and if actions taken had been impactful.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

According to National GP Patient Survey data 2026, 71% of people responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice, which was above the national average of 69%. However, only 50% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by phone,

In response to National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to further improve access to the service. For example, the provider introduced the use of online triage forms as part of its contractual requirements with the Integrated Care Board and upskilled its staff to use digital triaging Receptionists had been trained to support patients by signposting them to the most appropriate service, if they did not need to see a GP, such as Pharmacy First. This is national scheme allowing certain qualified pharmacists to prescribe medicines for a limited range of common conditions. The introduction of a social prescriber through the Primary care Network (PCN) and recruitment of a range of allied health professionals such as clinical pharmacists had increased the provider’s capacity to provide face to face appointments.

The provider had completed their own patient survey which alongside Friends and Family Test data provided positive results regarding peoples overall experience of the practice. They did not ask specifically about telephone access within the survey. Reception areas were clean and had seating that was appropriate for all people including those with mobility needs. There was a ramp leading into the buildingwhich meant that people had ‘step free’ access from the car park. Clinical rooms were across both the ground and first floor; however, a lift was available to allow access.

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 mainly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving 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 people living in temporary accommodation. 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 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. This information was shared with other services when necessary.