- GP practice
Sarephed Medical Centre
Assessment report published 14 April 2026
Contents
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
Responsive
We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.
This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.
The provider had systems in place to be able to respond to people in a timely manner and where they were unable to do this, actions were taken to improve the service.
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.
Person-centred Care
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.
People were involved in the care and treatment they received so they could decide with their clinicians’ the best choices for them. As part of this process people’s views were gathered and listened to. Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed people had positive experiences of involvement in their care. The provider scored 93%, which was above both the national average of 91% and the local average of 90%
Care plans reflected 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.
Care provision, Integration and continuity
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 found that the provider worked in partnership with other services in their local community to ensure people received care and treatment that was tailored to their needs respecting their culture and religion. There were systems in place to support people with language barriers, and the provider had a patient participation group (PPG) and used family and friends results to gather people’s views on the services they were offering.
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 the community healthcare provider.
Providing Information
The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
The provider displayed information in a range of languages in the reception area to support people who may face language barriers. Interpreting services were available when needed, and staff were able to assist patients where communication challenges existed. The information provided by the practice met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS).
Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. People were informed as to how to access their care records.
Listening to and involving people
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 provider had a complaints and compliments process in place to enable people to share their views and raise concerns. Complaints were being managed in line with the providers procedures. We identified when the provider responded to complainants, they did not inform them of their right to contact the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO), if they were not happy with the outcome to their complaint. The provider told us this would be done in future.
We saw the provider had made improvements by implementing a call back system on their telephone system because of a complaint they investigated.
Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of patient feedback, including complaints.
Equity in access
The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed mixed experiences of access. Fifty‑four per cent of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using its website, which was above the national average of 51% and the local average of 46%. In contrast, 45% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, which was below the national average of 53% and the local average of 48%.The provider had reviewed this feedback and had identified actions to improve access. This included extending appointment times for people with a learning disability and implementing a new call‑back function on the telephone system to reduce call waiting times. The provider told us they hoped these changes would lead to improved patient experience in future survey results.People could access the service online, in person and by telephone, allowing them to choose the method that best suited their needs. Clinical and treatment rooms were available on the ground floor to support people with mobility needs.We discussed physical access to the premises with the provider. While a ramp was available at the entrance, we highlighted the importance of installing automatic doors to better support people using wheelchairs. The provider told us this was already under consideration.Equity in experiences and outcomes
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.
We found the service people received was focussed at ensuring their experiences was positive and outcomes were what they expected.
Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Providers 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 treatment. The provider had processes so people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as people who were homeless, travellers and veterans. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those whose first language was not English or had access to the internet.
Planning for the future
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.
We found that the provider understood legislation around planning for people’s future care and treatment choices and provided evidence to show how this was being done. Records reviewed 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.