North Chelmsford NHS Healthcare 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 the service met people’s needs, and 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 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 82% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of this service as being good, compared to a national average of 75%. Moreover, 65% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the service by phone, compared to a national average of 53%. In addition, 79% of people responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice, compared to a national average of 70%. This demonstrated that people were able to access the service when needed and in a manner that met their preferences.

Service leaders routinely monitored and reviewed appointment data to ensure efficient use of available appointments and to support continuous improvement. Staff we spoke with told us access was determined by patient need and they worked to accommodate people. For example, staff had established processes to support people requiring flexible access to appointments. Late appointments were available on every weekday, from 6:30pm to 8pm via their Primary care network and weekend appointments were available on a Saturday from 9am to 5pm.

Service leaders explained that a GP clinically triaged all appointment requests to ensure people with the highest clinical need were prioritised appropriately. The process was continuously monitored and reviewed on a daily basis. The service offered medical triage from 6am until 5pm and administrative triage was available from 6am until 6:30pm every weekday.

We reviewed compliments received by the service, alongside feedback from people who used the service. Feedback consistently reflected high levels of satisfaction with the ease and speed of access, as well as the range of options available for requesting appointments, including in person, by telephone, and online.

In response to results from the latest National GP Patient Survey, leaders at the practice had conducted an annual audit which resulted in the implementation of actions to improve patient satisfaction. For example, the latest National GP Patient Survey results showed a decline in patient confidence and trust in healthcare professionals, this reduced from 97% to 91%. In response to this, the practice implemented changes to strengthen clinician–patient communication, including encouraging clinicians to actively listen, confirm patients’ concerns and involve them in discussions about their care and management plans.

Treatment and consulting rooms were available on the top floor at the main site with access via 2 lifts. At the branch site, treatment rooms were available on both the ground and top floor with lift access available. Both main and branch had floor level entry into the building to ensure ease of access to the service. The premises were accessible, with an automatic entrance door. Interpreter services were available for those people whose first language was not English. For people with a hearing impairment, a hearing loop was available. In addition, signage posters for Basic Life Support (BLS) were in place at both sites.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. We saw examples of personalised care that had ensured people received equity in their care at the service and enhanced their overall experience and treatment outcome.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, the practice as part of their Primary Care Network had a well-being coach, a care co-ordinator and a social prescriber to support patients as needed.

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, staff told us how they made reasonable adjustments for vulnerable patients by offering flexible and double appointments to ensure the patient had enough time. The practice also implemented a standard operating procedure for managing patients with complex needs, supported by regular discussion at clinical meetings. Patients received care tailored to their individual needs. Where appropriate, patients were offered continuity of care through regular appointments with the same clinician, supporting the management of complex needs and helping to reduce frequent contact with the service. For example, staff reported that this approach helped reduce patient anxiety and decreased frequency of appointments from weekly to fortnightly, and then to monthly. Two patients no longer required this support. Staff had also established dedicated support for people who were waiting to access specialist mental health support. The practice proactively engaged with local charities to support people in the community by facilitating access to drop-in services, including dementia support groups and the Healthy Minds Hub. The practice had implemented new policies and procedures and ensured staff received appropriate training, including additional training to support patients with sensory impairments and patients with a learning disability or who were autistic. This included effective use of clinical system coding to flag needs, provision of reasonable adjustments, home visits where required and regular annual reviews to support patient care. In the previous 12 months, all eligible patients with a learning disability were offered an annual health check. Of those who wished to receive one, 66% had completed a health check, representing an improvement compared to 57% in the previous year. This demonstrated improved access and engagement, supporting earlier identification of health needs and better patient outcomes.

The service had systems to monitor and review performance against GP indicators in comparison to national and local averages, relating to patient experience and outcomes. This information was routinely discussed at practice and senior management meetings. The service held regular learning event meetings, with documented records and required actions identified. For example, a new home visiting policy was introduced to help avoid missed visits, with clear duty GP responsibility and oversight from senior partners. No further incidents were reported following its implementation.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.