The Jersey 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 in April 2016, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care records reviewed on site for people with a learning disability and autism showed incomplete care plans to support them and their health needs.

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. The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the service supported a nursing home with primary care services and the feedback from the social care provider was positive about care provision for their patients.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was not available. Also, there was no visible poster about chaperoning services in the patient waiting area. However, there were information about sepsis posters in the patient waiting area.

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. Complaints were logged, managed and responded to appropriately. However, patients were not signposted to other services if they were unhappy with the outcome of their complaints. Following the site visit, the service informed us that the response template had been updated with the information to signpost the patients.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The National GP Patient Survey 2025 results showed that 73% of the respondents had good overall experience of contacting the service which was in line with the local (71%) and national (70%) averages. Patients could access the premises easily. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, telephone and in-person. However, there were patients who experienced difficulties getting appointments and some felt the in-person appointments were rushed.

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 to CQC was mainly positive with a few negative feedback.

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 life. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for end-of-life care including cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the information was shared with other services when necessary.