Prestbury 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 as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (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.

Reasonable adjustments and personal adjustments were recorded. Patients told us they felt well looked after and staff ensured their individual needs were met. When a preference had been communicated, we saw measures in place to ensure this was consistently acted on. We also saw examples of times when people felt their needs had not been met and saw evidence of communication, understanding and actions to ensure people felt cared for and comfortable with the outcome.

There was access to an interpreter, quiet waiting areas and home visiting for housebound patients. The facilities were suitable, with various adjustments or equipment available, such as a large private baby feeding room, hearing loop and noise cancelling ear protection available if required.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

Feedback from other services such as care homes showed a consistent supportive approach to care where people were treated fairly and equally.

The service had established relationships with community groups to support and promote health care and patient information events organised by the Patient Participation Group (PPG).

The Service demonstrated how they ensured a health service where the community needs had been considered and additional services made available based on these, such as the health and wellbeing team, Mental Health Practitioner and access to the Primary Care Network Respiratory Hub.

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

Notice boards were clearly laid out, with relevant up to date information. The service also displayed posters to inform patients that information was available in a range of formats. Facilities were clearly signposted, including the use of visual (pictorial) signage.

Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Patients were informed about how to access their care records. Staff were able to demonstrate how they would meet requests for additional support, such as providing letters in large print or braille.

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.

Patient feedback during the assessment indicated that most people felt listened to and were given time to talk during appointments. The latest results of the National GP patient survey showed that 78% of people said the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening to them during their last appointment. This was below the national (87%) and local (84%) averages.

Feedback from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) indicated that the service acknowledged and valued the group’s views. Changes had been made in response to PPG feedback, including the introduction of a new phone system.

PPG meetings were structured, with agendas, actions, and minutes recorded. These were made available on the service website and on the notice board within the premises.

The service was a training practice and supported clinicians to develop and enhance their skills. This included educational sessions focused on ensuring patients feel valued and listened to during appointments.

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

The latest National GP Patient Survey data (2025) showed that 45% of respondents rated their experience of contacting the GP practice as good. This was significantly lower than the national average (70%) and the local average (64%).

Since the survey results were published, the service had introduced a new telephone system and triage process to improve access. Feedback collected during this assessment was 78% positive (70 out of 90 responses). We received over 30 comments highlighting improvements, including feedback regarding contacting and accessing the service. The provider also shared unverified data which showed reduced call waiting times and improvements in access following the changes.

The service recognised that patients had experienced difficulties in accessing appointments and contacting the practice. Whilst improvements had been made, some feedback continued to highlight challenges, including difficulties understanding or completing the triage form. Staff had received training to support patients and were helping people to complete the form where needed.

The provider understood these concerns and was continuing to monitor and review the new systems. Evidence showed they had taken action to improve access and support patients, including those with additional needs. The service was open and transparent in responding to feedback and remained focused on improving patient experience.

The premises were designed to support access, with features such as wider doorways, wheelchair-friendly corridors and automatic doors. Clear pictorial signage was in place to help people find facilities, and there were visual and verbal prompts to direct patients to clinical rooms for their appointments.

Staff gave examples of reasonable adjustments made to support patients. This included providing a quieter waiting area and offering support to help people understand and complete the triage form.

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 had extended hours including Saturdays through the Primary Care Network (PCN).

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Arrangements were in place to support access to services, including adjustments for people who were unable to use systems such as the triage forms. We saw examples of patients being supported by patient advisors to complete the form. The service also shared learning when opportunities had been missed, to help make sure all patients had equal access to support.

The service used digital alerts to highlight information about patients who needed adjustments or additional support, so that staff could respond to individual needs. The provider was part of the Veteran Friendly Accreditation Scheme and shared relevant information on a dedicated notice board. They also promoted support and independence by offering advice, signposting to community groups, longer appointments, and access to a range of staff roles to help ensure outcomes were fair and equal.

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.

Our review of records showed that patients were supported to consider and record their wishes for end‑of‑life care, including decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when appropriate. Records clearly documented decisions, including details of discussions and any reviews undertaken.

Feedback from care homes and people using the service indicated that they felt listened to and supported. It was reported that the service responded promptly and completed actions in line with people’s preferences in a timely and effective way.