Lindley Group 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 looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Both urgent (same day) and pre-bookable appointments were available. The provider offered extended access appointments which included early morning and weekend appointments. Home visits were also offered to patients where appropriate.

Patients could book appointments online, however non-digital access routes remained available for patients who could not or did not wish to use online services.

The service was accessible to patients with disabilities. Accessible toilet facilities and dedicated parking for people with disabilities were available, however an emergency pull-cord had not been fitted in the toilet.

The practice’s results for the National GP Patient Survey 2026 showed that patient experience of access had greatly improved since 2025 and was now in line with local and national averages. For example, of 129 respondents, 77% responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the practice (national average 73%), 60% responded positively to how easy it was to get through to the practice by phone (national average 57%), 53% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using their website (national average 58%) and 70% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using the NHS App (national average 54%). The provider told us they had improved their results through continued monitoring of access data.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. They understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made reasonable adjustments where possible.

The provider took steps to promote equity by identifying and supporting patients who may be at increased risk of poorer experience, for example those with a learning disability. The provider held registers of specific patient groups, and patient records were also flagged to easily highlight any additional needs.

The provider told us that in the last 12 months they had completed 83% of learning disability health checks. They told us they routinely made several contacts with these patients to encourage attendance, and offered them a home visit where appropriate.

At the previous assessment in September 2025, we found that staff had not completed learning disabilities and autism training at a level appropriate to their role. At that time, the provider told us they were exploring options to access face-to-face and interactive training. At this assessment, we found that staff had still not completed relevant learning disabilities and autism training. The provider told us this was due to difficulties accessing suitable training. However, discussions during the assessment indicated that there was a lack of understanding of the different training requirements and levels, which limited the provider's ability to ensure staff received training appropriate to their role.

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. Decisions and choices made by people were documented and reviewed as required.

At the previous assessment in September 2025, we found that the provider did not have a system in place to review and follow up on any DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decisions made in secondary care or the community setting, to ensure appropriate records were maintained. At this assessment, the provider told us they had discussed this issue with clinical staff and introduced a new process. However, they were unable to provide examples on the day of the assessment to demonstrate that the process had been implemented in practice. Following the assessment, the provider produced a policy outlining the process for reviewing and following up on these DNACPR decisions.