Practice Plus Group Surgical Centre, Devizes

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The centre was exceptional at making 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.

Individual needs and preferences were discussed before treatment, enabling care pathways to be adapted to meet patients’ circumstances. Patients with dementia, learning disabilities, neurodivergence or other additional needs were offered personalised support, including social stories and pre-visit opportunities, to reduce anxiety and improve their experience of care.

The centre recognised that attending hospital could be challenging for some patients and had developed a neurodiversity passport to support people who were neurodivergent, including those who were diagnosed, awaiting diagnosis or self-identifying as neurodivergent. The passport enabled patients to communicate their individual preferences and support needs, allowing staff to make reasonable adjustments and tailor care accordingly. This supported a more personalised approach to care and helped improve patients’ experience throughout their treatment pathway.

Patients’ information resources, including descriptions and images of radiology equipment were available, to help patients understand what would happen during their appointment. This enabled patients to prepare for their visit, reduce uncertainty and anxiety, and supported a more personalised and positive experience of care.

Additionally, the centre had a visual patient guide, “Going to Devizes Surgical Centre for a tooth extraction”, which used photographs and clear descriptions to explain each stage of the patient journey. This helped patients understand what to expect during their visit.

We observed person-centred care being delivered to a patient with additional needs during the inspection. Staff had contacted the family in advance to understand the patient's individual needs and identify any reasonable adjustments or additional support required. The patient's family member told us they had used the centre previously and had consistently experienced staff being patient, understanding and responsive to their needs. They described the centre as "brilliant with her, great for neurodivergent people."

We saw staff involve a patient in decisions about their care and support their autonomy. The patient's mother told us she had been offered the opportunity to accompany her daughter during treatment but had chosen not to, as she wanted to promote her daughter's independence. Staff ensured consent processes were followed and tailored their approach to meet the patient's individual needs and preferences, demonstrating a personalised and compassionate approach to care.

The evidence showed a good standard. The centre 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 worked effectively with patients, carers and partner services to ensure care was coordinated and continuous throughout the patient journey. Staff accessed shared care records, diagnostic systems and information from GPs and other healthcare providers to support clinical decision-making, care planning and the safe delivery of treatment.

Care was coordinated through multi disciplinary team (MDT) working, with patients' needs, risks and support requirements discussed by relevant professionals throughout the pathway. Weekly MDT meetings enabled staff to review patient suitability for surgery, identify risks and agree actions, ensuring care was coordinated and informed by the expertise of the wider clinical team.

The centre used the patient knows best online portal to support communication, coordination and continuity of care. The portal enabled patients to book and manage appointments electronically and express preferences regarding the clinicians involved in their care. This supported continuity by enabling patients, where possible, to be seen by professionals familiar with their clinical history, previous treatment decisions and ongoing care needs. The system also promoted patient engagement and improved communication between patients and the service.

Effective communication systems supported continuity of care across departments. Shared patient information, including high-risk patient trackers and electronic records, enabled relevant clinical teams to access key information and coordinate care effectively. This helped ensure individual needs were recognised and responded to throughout the patient pathway.

The centre had established pathways with community and specialist services to support ongoing care following treatment. Patients received clear discharge information, access to a 24-hour advice line and routine follow-up calls following discharge. Where specialist input was required, referrals were made to services such as physiotherapy, hand therapy and community-based rehabilitation services, supporting patients to access the right care at the right time and promoting continuity between providers.

The centre also worked collaboratively with its sister hospital through shared governance arrangements, clinical governance meetings and standard operating procedures. This supported the sharing of learning, best practice and consistent clinical pathways across the organisation, helping to ensure patients received coordinated, high-quality care regardless of where they accessed services.

The evidence showed a good standard. The centre supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The centre provided patients with timely, accessible and relevant information throughout their care journey to support informed decision-making and engagement in their treatment. A range of patient information leaflets was available within the service, covering procedures, treatments and recovery.

Prior to surgery, patients received written information explaining when and where to attend for their procedure, together with procedure-specific information to help them prepare for treatment. This ensured patients understood what to expect and had the information required to make informed decisions about their care.

On the day of surgery, patients were provided with additional information explaining the surgical pathway, including details about anaesthetic options and pre-medication. Staff took time to explain processes, answer questions and check patients understood the information provided. During the inspection, we observed staff welcoming patients, explaining available facilities and refreshments, and encouraging patients to ask questions about their care and treatment.

Patients were informed about who to contact if they had concerns before or after treatment, ensuring they could access advice and support when required. Feedback demonstrated that patients found communication from the service clear and timely. One patient told us, "I contacted the service through a referral, was called the same day and the process was explained."

The centre met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and adhered to the organisation's Accessible Information Standard policy. This supported people with disabilities, impairments or sensory loss to receive information in formats they could understand and access. These arrangements helped promote equitable access to information and supported patients to participate fully in decisions about their care. However, the Accessible Information Standard policy was overdue for review, with the stated review date having passed in March 2026.

The evidence showed a good standard. The centre 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 centre encouraged patients to be actively involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Patients were supported to ask questions, raise concerns and discuss their preferences throughout their care journey. Staff involved patients in planning their treatment and ensured they were provided with information about their expected discharge date at an early stage, enabling them to make arrangements for ongoing care, support and social needs following discharge.

Patients knew how to provide feedback, raise concerns or make a complaint about the service. We spoke with patients who told us they understood how to share their experiences and felt confident that any concerns would be listened to and addressed appropriately.

The organisation had a complaints and feedback policy in place which provided staff with guidance on managing concerns, complaints and compliments. The policy supported a consistent approach to responding to feedback and ensuring people's views were used to improve services.

Feedback from patients was actively encouraged and used to inform service improvement activities. By listening to patients' experiences and involving them in discussions about their care, the centre promoted a person-centred approach and ensured people's views, wishes and concerns were considered when planning and delivering care.

The centre was able to demonstrate how patient feedback, including complaints, was used to drive improvements in services and patient experience. For example, following concerns raised by a patient about communication regarding delays to a clinical appointment, the provider reviewed the circumstances and acknowledged that information about the delay had not been communicated effectively on arrival. The feedback was shared with the relevant teams, and action was taken to strengthen communication processes. This included introducing a more robust system for notifying reception staff of delays and installing a patient information board in the waiting area to provide real-time updates. These changes showed how the provider listened to people’s experiences and used feedback to improve the information and support available to patients.

The evidence showed a good standard. The centre made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The centre had processes to promote equitable access to care and ensure patients could access centres in a way that met their individual needs. An SOP for urgent and vulnerable patient pathways included arrangements for translation and interpretation, telemedicine appointments, and reasonable adjustments for patients with dementia, learning disabilities, neurodivergence and other additional needs. Patients with suspected cancer were prioritised through established two-week referral pathways, with prompt escalation to specialist cancer teams within 24 hours of identification. These arrangements supported timely access to assessment and treatment and reduced the risk of barriers to care for vulnerable or disadvantaged groups.

The waiting list and referral to treatment (RTT) SOP required patients to be treated within agreed timescales, with electronic systems used to monitor waiting times, identify potential breaches and support active waiting list management. Weekly multidisciplinary scheduling meetings reviewed demand, capacity and waiting times to support timely access to centres. Patients with urgent clinical needs were prioritised for treatment, and clinical harm reviews were undertaken for those experiencing longer waits to ensure risks were identified and mitigated.

The organisation’s equality, diversity and inclusion committee reviewed patient information and communication materials to improve accessibility and identify patients requiring additional support at the earliest opportunity. Initial work focused on the oral surgery pathway and included redesigning appointment letters to be more neurodiversity-friendly, with greater clarity, predictability and sensory awareness. Additional adjustments included the provision of fidget toys and noise-reducing earplugs during appointments. Further developments included plans for a neurodiversity passport, information on available reasonable adjustments, and a visual ‘social story’ of the patient pathway. These initiatives aimed to reduce barriers to care and support more equitable access and experiences for patients with additional needs.

The service worked collaboratively with system partners through participation in the safeguarding health specialist network group, where updates on partnership activity, integrated care board (ICB) priorities and service developments were shared. This supported joined up working across the local health and care system and helped ensure people could access coordinated and responsive care. The service also sought feedback from patients through participation in patient-led assessments of the care environment (PLACE) assessments, enabling people to contribute to the evaluation and improvement of the care environment and overall experience of care.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 centre was committed to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion and had systems to help ensure people received equitable access to care, treatment and support. The organisation had an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) Committee which championed, supported and oversaw the integration of EDI principles across all aspects of the centre's work. The committee aimed to identify opportunities to improve existing and new processes that supported the inclusion of patients, staff and visitors, oversee equality impact assessments, and promote awareness, training and initiatives that advanced equality, diversity and inclusion.

The centre had processes in place to identify and respond to patients with additional needs, disabilities or vulnerabilities at the earliest opportunity. Patients living with dementia, learning disabilities, neurodivergence, sensory impairments or other support needs were identified during referral, outpatient assessment or pre-operative assessment and appropriate support arrangements were put in place.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of personalised care and adapting services to meet individual needs. Through comprehensive assessment, reasonable adjustments and coordinated care planning, the centre worked to reduce barriers to care and promote positive experiences and outcomes for all patients, regardless of their background, disability, communication needs or personal circumstances.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 centre supported people to plan for important stages of their care, treatment and recovery, enabling them to make informed decisions about their future health needs. Staff worked with patients throughout their treatment pathway to ensure they understood their options, the likely outcomes of treatment and any ongoing support they required following discharge.

Patients were encouraged to participate in decisions about their care and treatment and were provided with information to help them make informed choices. Staff discussed treatment options, risks, benefits and recovery expectations with patients, ensuring care planning reflected individual preferences and circumstances.

The centre had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Advance Decisions Policy, which provided staff with guidance on supporting people to make decisions about their future care and treatment. The policy outlined the processes for discussing, documenting and respecting advance decisions and DNACPR decisions in accordance with legislation and best practice. This helped ensure people's wishes and preferences were understood and considered when planning future care.

Discharge planning began early in the patient pathway. Patients were informed of their anticipated discharge date, and staff discussed any ongoing health, social care or support needs before treatment took place. This enabled patients and, where appropriate, their families or carers to make arrangements in advance and helped support a safe transition from the centre to home.

Where ongoing rehabilitation or specialist support was required, patients were referred to appropriate services and provided with information about follow-up care. These arrangements supported continuity of care and helped people plan for their recovery and longer-term health and wellbeing following treatment.