Lion Health

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 Inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.

At our last assessment we found the practice was attempting to improve access, however this was not reflected in patient feedback. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made, but we continued to receive mixed feedback from patients on appointment access.

This service scored 62 (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.

In the latest NHS National GP patient survey, 88% of respondents said that they felt their needs were met during their last appointment, this was in line with the local average of 88% and the national survey results of 90%. A total of 91% of people said they were involved as much as they wanted to in decisions about their care and treatment, this was in line with the local average of 90% and the national average of 91%).

The service offers extended hour clinics 4 evenings a week and Saturday mornings.

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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service offered a wide mix of clinicians including GP registrars, nursing team, HCA’s, Advanced Nurse Practitioners (ANP), physicians associates, paramedics, practice-based pharmacists, mental health worker, health coaches and had a wide range of clinics including, Chronic disease management, healthy living, women’s health and travel clinics.

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

The service offered on demand interpreter services including over the phone, face to face or via a video interpreter, and could offer British sign language interpreters. Within the practice they had a hearing loop and written materials in large print, and had a quiet space waiting room, allocated for people who may be neurodivergent or have sensory sensitivities, information leaflets could be offered in different languages, and the service utilised easy read letters for patients with learning disabilities. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. 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.

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.

There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who confirmed that the practice had engaged with them, listened to them, and acted on feedback.

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

The National GP Patient Survey data showed that 52% of people had a good overall experience of contacting the GP practice, this was below the local average of 64% and the national average of 70%. Further results of the survey showed 16% of patients found it easy to contact the service by phone. This was significantly lower than the local average of 48% and the national average of 53 %. However, we found patient satisfaction scores had improved since the previous year. Since the last CQC inspection in September 2023, the service had audited their telephone data weekly and responded to the findings dynamically. In April 2025, the service introduced Anima, a total triage system. Patients we spoke to were generally positive about completing the online forms, receptionists supported them in accessing the form if required and the surgery had set up a discrete workstation in reception, so to support walk in patients to complete the form. Telephone staff completed the form over the phone with people who were digitally excluded or had a learning disability. Complaints the service had received in the last 18 months no longer had any themes around access. The call volume had significantly decreased since the introduction of triage, as had the number of duplicate calls, indicating patients were getting through on their first attempt.The site was accessible to people with additional needs including disabled and pram access.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The National GP Survey showed 88% of patients had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke with, this was in line with the local average of 91% and the national average of 93%.

Patient feedback was mixed about their experience with the service, feedback around their clinical care was positive. However, feedback about getting an appointment tended towards the negative. We observed that the Anima system was often closed earlier in the day. In line with NHSE guidance, from the 1 October 2025 the surgery was keeping Anima open for the full working day, and the surgery had trialled this to ensure they had the capacity to manage this and were confident that this was achievable. Data we saw showed that capacity was getting better, and that people who were not offered an appointment were signposted appropriately.

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 Travellers.

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