The Meads 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 fairly and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

At our previous inspection we identified concerns about the way the service managed access to the service. At this assessment, we found that the service had improved. The practice had reviewed its appointment systems and increased clinical capacity. Patient feedback about the experience of accessing the service and booking an appointment was also improving.

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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs and decisions about their care.

The service did not employ a male GP but could direct people to a male paramedic if this was appropriate for their condition or ask a male paramedic to chaperone intimate examinations if the person wished. We were told that nobody had specifically requested a male GP.

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 population. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, providing cervical screening appointments outside of normal working hours to make attendance easier.

The team coded the records of people for whom continuity of GP was important so that this was facilitated for non-urgent appointments. GPs were able to directly book follow up appointments for people requiring ongoing care, minimising inconvenience for people.

There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider to coordinate people’s care. The service held regular multidisciplinary team meetings which included representatives from other community health teams, for example, the palliative care team.

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

The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The leaders were committed to ensuring that information provided by the service met the NHS Accessible Information Standard and were planning to carry out a self-assessment exercise in September 2025 to review this. People were informed about how to access their care records.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback and complaints, for example, the process for ensuring scan results were reviewed, acted on and this communicated to the person had been reviewed following a complaint and discussion at the clinical meeting.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service had made improvements to the way people could access the service since our previous inspection. Feedback from people using the service about access and the ease of getting an appointment had improved.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had increased their clinical capacity by recruiting more GPs. They had also co-located the duty doctor alongside the reception team to ensure they were accessible to staff who needed advice or guidance especially at busy times of the day. People could contact the service in a way that met their needs, for example, online, in person and by telephone.

The most recent National GP Patient Survey results (July 2025) showed that 64%of respondents described their experience of contacting this GP practice as good. (The average result for practices in Sussex for this indicator was 69% and nationally 70%.) At our previous inspection, the service scored 38% for people responding positively about the experience of making an appointment and 33% for people responding positively about their GP practice appointment times. (The indicator wording has changed so exact comparison is not possible).

The service was physically accessible, for example, the staff team used pictorial signage to help people with neurodiverse conditions to find their way around the premises.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service was positive. Staff were committed to treating people equally and without discrimination. Leaders sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including in the voluntary sector, to address 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, the service had completed health checks with all the people on the learning disability and autism register in 2024/25 and were working towards this goal again for 2025/26.

There were processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in more vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travelers. The service was signed up to the ‘Safe Surgery’ initiative, so that people newly arrived in the UK were able to register and access services without difficulty.

The service was exploring a move to a ‘total triage’ appointment system (that is, where people submit an online form for any appointment request which then goes through a clinical triage process and the appropriate appointment booked and confirmed with the person). The leaders were designing their approach to ensure that provision was made for people who did not have digital access or faced other barriers (for example, literacy difficulties).

However, we found one area where the service should improve. The service did not have an established and effective system to offer people who were also carers an annual health check to ensure their needs were being met.

Staff used a range of 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. 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. At the time of this assessment, the service had started an audit of people’s recorded resuscitation decisions to ensure these were being reviewed periodically in line with guidelines. This had been triggered by a complaint.