Lanchester 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to receiving and acting upon complaints. We found the service did not always fully investigate, respond appropriately and learn from complaints.

This service scored 61 (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.

The clinical searches we carried out in July 2025 demonstrated patients were not always supported to understand their condition and were not involved in planning for their care needs. They were not always involved in decisions about their care. When we analysed these searches in April 2026, we found improvements had been made. Care records now reflected evidence of clinical reasoning, patient engagement and consideration of effectiveness of treatments. Management of long-term conditions had improved and there was now good oversight. Patients were better informed about treatment and care choices.

Care plans reflected the physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. 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.

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.

At our last inspection we found shortfalls in how the service understood the health and care needs of patients, meaning care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. This included concerns about care for people with asthma and the management of correspondence and test results. Our analysis of clinical records undertaken in April 2026 demonstrated improvements had been made. There were now arrangements in place to monitor and review the needs of patients with long term conditions. However, we found one area of risk remaining. Patients who had experienced acute exacerbations of asthma and prescribed oral steroids were not always routinely followed up and not always issued a steroid card to help alert other healthcare professionals of potential risks the patient may face. We found the practice had addressed the issues related to the flow of work and there was now a clear protocol in place for checking results (such as blood and liver function tests). We found no evidence of delays or unactioned results.

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 community healthcare providers.

The service had implemented some improvements. They supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. However, the information provided when responding to complaints could still be improved.

In July 2025, we found that the service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up to date information to patients. At this inspection we found concerns remained in the way complaints were handled. Complainants were not always given the full facts, as these were not established in complaint responses and they were not given a clear rational for the findings of the complaint. We did, however, find improvements had been made to the handling of test results, and we found no evidence of delays or unactioned results.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

In July 2025, we reported the service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise concerns about their care, treatment and support.

At this inspection, we found concerns remained. Although administrative changes had been made to improve the tracking and monitoring of complaints, they had not improved the quality of the complaint responses provided. In the examples we reviewed we found the provider did not always provide a chronology of events or other important information to evidence their findings. They did not come to robust evidence-based conclusions or give a clear rationale for their findings. There was evidence of significant delays in responding to some complaints. The provider did not demonstrate they had learned or improved because of complaints.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) expressed significant concerns about the way the practice listened and learnt from the feedback provided by themselves as a group, as well as individual patients. They told us there were common themes to the feedback they had given to the practice, but they remained unconvinced that the provider listened or responded to these matters. The PPG told us they felt there was a lack of respect from the provider about the work they had done and the feedback they provided. The relationship between the provider and the PPG did not always lead to productive change. However, both sides told us they were still willing to engage and were hopeful that positive change could be achieved in the future.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, we could not yet ascertain the sustainability of arrangements moving forward.

In our July 2025 inspection, we said the service did not make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it. At this inspection, we saw improvements had been made. Arrangements had been made to offer longer term contracts to locum GPs, whilst recruitment for a new GP continued to progress. An advanced nurse practitioner had been recruited as a lead nurse. We checked the appointment ledger for the last 5 weeks and found appropriate clinical cover in place.

However, we received some concerns following the inspection about the sustainability of the arrangements, with concerns about planned clinical sessions being rearranged as remote GP telephone appointments. Our review of additional information requested following the site visit did not support these concerns. There was no evidence of ongoing or persistent changes to planned clinical sessions.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a level access and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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.

In our last inspection (July 2025) we reported staff and leaders did not actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, or patients in general. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

In April 2026, we found some improvements had been made but more work was needed to ensure this was effective and fully embedded. Our clinical searches evidenced care for patients with long term conditions had improved and we found no concerns. However, we continued to receive feedback from patients and the PPG that the clinical care provided did not meet their expectations. Learning from significant events and complaints was not fully utilised to learn from and improve the outcomes of those who may experience inequality in experiences or outcome.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mixed and indicated levels of dissatisfaction with the service people had received.

However, we found staff treated people equally and without discrimination. 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.

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.

In the July 2025 inspection, we were concerned that due to the standard of consultations and availability of GPs that patients were not always supported in their planning for important life changes. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. There was a more stable clinical team, with greater GP input. 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.