Stirling Road 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.
 

This service scored 75 (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.
Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. 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.
The service had systems to identify, record and respond to people's preferences, communication needs and reasonable adjustment requirements. Registration processes for new people registering with the service, captured information about disability, communication and information needs, which were recorded using the service's reasonable adjustment processes. People with identified reasonable adjustment needs or a learning disability were routinely offered longer appointments to support their involvement in care and treatment decisions. The service could also accommodate requests for a clinician of a specific gender where this was requested and operationally possible.
 

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 had made improvements in how it understood and responded to the needs of its local population since the last inspection.

Now, leaders demonstrated an understanding of the inequalities affecting people using the service. The service participated in the Deep End programme, which supports GP practices serving communities experiencing high levels of deprivation. Leaders had developed initiatives to address local inequalities, including social prescribing, digital inclusion support and Safe Surgery arrangements to improve access for people who may face barriers to registering with a GP. The service also provided targeted support for veterans.

People could access care through both digital and traditional routes, including by telephone, which supported those who may experience digital exclusion. Additionally, the service supported digital inclusion through community-based digital support sessions at a local church.

The service promoted continuity of care through named GP arrangements for those with complex needs and longer appointments were available. Continuity preferences were considered as part of the care navigation process, and people could continue to access the service by telephone.
People could access physiotherapy and social prescribing through self-referral pathways. The service was involved in community initiatives, including the PL5 project, which aimed to improve access to community support, volunteering and training opportunities for local people. The service had home visiting arrangements for people unable to attend the service and multidisciplinary working was established with community teams such as district nurses.
 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
The service made reasonable adjustments to help people access and understand information in a way that met their individual needs. A policy and supporting process were in place in line with the Accessible Information Standard. People could be provided with easy-read or translated materials and could access interpreter services, including British Sign Language interpretation. Health promotion information was also available on the service’s website, including information about NHS Health Checks, screening programmes, maternity care and contraception.
 

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.
The service had made improvements in its systems and processes for listening to and involving people since the last inspection. Now, people had opportunities to provide feedback through the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and other engagement activities, and the service demonstrated how feedback had informed changes to service delivery.
An active PPG provided opportunities for people to contribute to the development of the service and share their views. The PPG had an established charter and comprised of 13 members, including 4 new members. Leaders described ongoing engagement with the group, with the next meeting scheduled for September. Feedback gathered through the PPG and other engagement activities was reviewed and acted upon to support service improvement.
The service demonstrated how engagement with people who used the service had informed changes to service delivery. For example, people were written to regarding changes to access arrangements, including the introduction of a telephone navigation system designed to direct people to the most appropriate service or support. The service also used feedback and engagement activities to develop educational initiatives, including digital inclusion sessions aimed at supporting people to access services and information.
The service had also strengthened its complaints process. The complaints policy and process were accessible to people using the service. We reviewed a sample of complaints and found these had been acknowledged, investigated and responded to in line with the service’s policy. Leaders maintained oversight of complaints through the service’s assurance arrangements and analysed themes, trends, learning and resulting actions to inform improvements to the quality of care and treatment and support follow-up through governance processes.
Staff understood how to support people to make complaints, escalate concerns and contribute to organisational learning. Learning from complaints and feedback was shared through governance arrangements.
 

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The service had made improvements in its systems and processes for providing access to care since the last inspection. An access policy supported the arrangements. Now, people could access the service through face-to-face, telephone and online appointments, with extended access available on Saturdays.
People could access the service through telephone and care navigation systems, the NHS App, telephone, face-to-face appointments and self-referral pathways. People could choose from a range of appointment types across the service's 5 sites. Appointment availability reviews showed that routine, urgent, same day and pre-bookable appointments were available.
The service made reasonable adjustments for people who experienced barriers to accessing care. Online and digital access options were available, opening hours and out-of-hours information were clearly displayed, and people could check in using a digital self-service screen with translation functionality. Extended access appointments were available on Saturdays between 8am and 5pm, providing additional flexibility for people who could not attend during normal weekday opening hours.
The National GP Patient Survey showed that 51.5% of respondents reported a positive overall experience of contacting the service, compared with an expected result of 72.6%. In addition, 32.1% of respondents reported that it was easy to contact the service by telephone, compared with an expected result of 56.9%. These results demonstrated that access remained an area of concern for some people.
Leaders responded to access concerns by employing additional Care Navigator’s, staff training, daily triage and the introduction of a smart voice telephone system. The services data showed average telephone waits reduced from 27.9 minutes in February 2025 to 5.1 minutes between April and August 2026, while daily answered calls increased from 560 to around 870.
The service monitored the changes through audits, telephony data and feedback provided by staff and people who used the service. The service’s data showed peoples satisfaction with reception staff increased from 75% to 86%, ease of contact from 60% to 72%, and 66% of respondents found it easy or very easy to obtain an appointment in July 2026.
 

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.
The service demonstrated a clear understanding of its population and the inequalities affecting people accessing care. The service was part of the Deep End programme, which supports services with populations experiencing high levels of deprivation. Leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of their local population and had developed initiatives, including social prescribing, digital inclusion programmes, support for veterans and Safe Surgery arrangements, to help address health inequalities.
The service identified and supported groups who may experience poorer outcomes, including people with learning disabilities, carers, veterans and people experiencing deprivation.
Reasonable adjustment processes were embedded through policy, digital flagging systems, staff training and adapted appointment arrangements. People could access interpretation services, British Sign Language support, easy-read information and hearing loops. The service offered multiple routes to access care, including by telephone, in person and through digital services, which helped support people who may otherwise experience digital exclusion.
 

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 had arrangements to plan for people’s future health and care needs, particularly for those approaching the end of life. We saw evidence of regular multidisciplinary meetings involving the service, hospice services and other health and social care professionals. These meetings were used to review people’s needs, coordinate care and monitor treatment plans. Discussions included symptom management, anticipatory medicines, treatment escalation plans (TEPs), DNACPR decisions, safeguarding concerns and support arrangements to help people remain in their preferred place of care where appropriate.
The service worked collaboratively with community partners, including hospice, district nursing, oncology (the diagnosis and treatment of cancer) social care and care home services, to support coordinated care and continuity. We saw evidence that advance care planning was routinely considered and reviewed, with actions identified where documentation required updating or further discussion. Learning from governance processes and death reviews was also used to strengthen oversight of palliative care and future planning arrangements.