Musters Medical 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 good. At this assessment the rating remains the same with elements of outstanding. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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.

To support this the service operated a personal list system, meaning patients were generally able to consult with the GP they were registered with, enhancing personalised care as well as continuity of care. Patients also had the choice to choose a different GP if they wished to.

The service recognised the diverse population needs and fully understood their service’s demographic and language barriers. For example, invitations for cervical smear clinics were available in different languages to try and encourage attendance, and translators were utilised to assist in booking of appointments, face-to-face consultations or telephone consultations where required.

Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

Accessible standards and barriers to care were considered for people, with alerts added to medical records so that reception were aware upon contact that the person had additional needs. For example, people who were blind or hard of hearing were collected from the waiting room by the clinicians, leaflets were available large print or in braille and a hearing loop was installed at reception. People with autism or a learning disability were offered a quiet place to wait for appointments.

The service reached out to people with learning disabilities and their carers and encouraged them to accept an invite for a learning disability health check. Recall letters in accessible formats were provided to people with learning disabilities and wellbeing advice was provided in appropriate formats. Health checks were offered at the surgery or in people's own homes or care homes with a GP and health care assistant.

Clinicians felt people were directed to the right clinician the first time, by the reception team which enabled them to provide effective person-centred care.

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.

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

The service had access to interpreter and translation services, including British Sign Language. Information about the need to book for an interpreter was recorded on people’s records and additional time was provided for appointments. Staff told us they had access to services for translating documents into appropriate languages, including into English. A hearing loop was also available. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

A range of information on aspect of health for all ages and local support groups was available in the practice and via the practice website. Health information leaflets were available.

The service provided health promotion information to people and information. We saw notice boards within the waiting room communicated information for carers and young carers, men’s health, women’s health, cervical cytology promotional board, in-house research projects, friends and family survey feedback board and board promoting general wellbeing and health improved. For example, Park Run and health walks. The PPG also had their own notice board.

The service provided focused monthly key campaign boards for people, which followed the NHS campaigns and timetables. For example, stroke awareness, smoking awareness and NHS diabetes prevention program.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) who we spoke with, who told us, “as members we are always given the chance and are encouraged to add items to the agenda for discussion.” PPG members assisted to promote new systems within the service. For example, the PPG held a presence in the waiting room to promote the triage system which the service had just implemented. In addition, the PPG had presence on the service’s website and on social media to promote to initiatives. The PPG told us they had drop-in sessions in the waiting room over several weeks to demonstrate the triage system and how this would improve access for people.

A member of the PPG with lived experience positively promoted the management of diabetes and the importance of looking at treatments holistically, to include wellbeing and exercise.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff treated people with compassion and understanding. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) felt the provider took concerns seriously and proactively made improvements to the service.

The service routinely asked people to complete Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. For example, results from the FFT for the period April 2024 to March 2025 showed that an average of 88.7% of people felt that the practice was very good or good and would recommend the practice to their friends and family.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Complaints reviewed showed the practice responded to feedback appropriately, openly and in a non-defensive manner. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

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

The practice told us how they had audited access to the practice and identified appropriate actions to be implemented. In response to feedback from registered patients, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, a new telephone system to improve access to the practice and appointments.

They were moving towards Care Navigator roles in the reception team to support staff to make sure patients accessed the right clinician or service through their first contact with the practice. Staff were able to signpost patients to the most appropriate pathways when required. This included the pharmacy first scheme, social prescribers and health and wellbeing coaches. Patients were also signposted to the local urgent care centre when appropriate.

The appointment system had been altered to balance the demand for on the day and pre-bookable appointments. The service had recently introduced total triage for appointments and requests, whereby people telephoned or submitted their request online. GPs were responsible for triaging the information. People were offered an appointment appropriate for their assessed need or directed to an alternative service.

People who required routine appointments outside of the usual working hours had access to evening and weekend appointments. These appointments were booked on behalf of people by the service. Housebound people were offered home visits for consultations, blood tests and foot checks.

In March 2025, the service provided early morning cervical cytology clinics to accommodate working age patients and improve uptake of smears, in line with the health promotion programme to support women’s health. Information was promoted within the waiting room and on the website in various languages. The service informed us that prior to the campaign they completed an average of 56 smears a month. However, during March 2025, the uptake of smears had increased to 72. The service collected feedback from women who had attended the early morning clinics who commented on how barriers to accessing smears such as work commitments and caring responsibilities had been eased. Therefore the service informed us that they planned to continue the clinics.

The practice was able to offer extended appointments for people with a learning disability.

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

The recorded message heard when calling the practice had been updated to give patients more options to make an informed choice to access the right care, for example the option of contacting a pharmacy for some conditions.

Staff supported patients who used translation applications on their phone to enable them to communicate effectively to access the service. Texting services were also offered with translated text to enable equitable access for all people.

In addition, the service plans to increase the use of the NHS App and improve people’s access to book and manage appointments, order prescriptions, view GP health record and access to information such as allergies and medicines.

The service provided direct booking links to people who used services. For example, electronic booking links were sent to people who had been asked to book appointments with the pharmacist for medication review, vaccine clinics, for smear tests, and for blood tests. By using the booking link, people were able to make an appointment for the required slot directly and without using the rapid access total triage system.

National GP Patient Survey data and feedback received from people were positive about the experience of contacting the practice. Indicators showed 76% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice which was above the national average of 67%. In addition, 62% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, this was above the national average of 50%.

Feedback from people using the service was mostly positive. During our assessment we invited people to provide feedback directly to us. Six people provided feedback regarding the service. People felt involved in assessments of their needs and felt confident that staff understood their individual needs. Three people provided comments about obtaining appointments, which included, “it was easy to get appointments,” “quick access and good clinical care.” However, two people told us that they experienced difficulties in getting an appointment.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were 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 and to the CQC was 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. For example, extended hours appointments for workers, appointments at quiet times for vulnerable people and extended appointment times for complex cases.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and people from travelling communities.

Home visits were made for patients not only because of limitations due to medical and physical health but also due to barriers caused by mental health. 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. The service were proactive in identifying patients approaching end of life and sensitive to their needs for advanced care planning.

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. For example, the out of hours services and other health care professionals involved in the care of this group of people.

We were assured that safeguards were in place to ensure that decisions were made which were in the persons’ best interest. When people did not have mental capacity to make their own decisions regarding end-of-life care and priorities for care and treatment. family members and carers were involved in decision making.