Napier Road Surgery

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.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

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 relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected people’s needs, goals and preferences. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. People who provided feedback for this assessment were positive about their experience. People felt the service had adjusted care to meet their individual circumstances and preferences. They felt involved in decisions about their care.

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. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community.

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

Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to 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 because of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, staff booked a telephone appointment incorrectly. This resulted in the person attending the service without a scheduled appointment. The service apologised for the error and offered the person an afternoon appointment and apologised for the error. The complaint was discussed with the staff member who took the call, and a review of the call recording was completed for learning purposes.

Feedback from people using the service was positive. The National GP Patient Survey (2026) showed that 90% of respondents felt their needs were met and they felt involved in decisions about their care during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the national average of 90%.

Additionally, 89% of respondents stated that the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment (compared to the national average of 87%).

The service did not have an active patient participation group at the time of the assessment but were in the process of setting this up. Leaders could not provide a timeframe for this.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed.

The National GP Patient Survey (2026) showed that 81% of respondents felt that it was easy to contact their GP by phone (compared to the national average of 53%).

People told us they found getting an appointment straightforward and usually quickly. The reception team were also positive about the appointment system and told us there was enough capacity to meet people’s needs.

When we conducted our onsite visit, we saw the next available urgent appointment was on the 26 May and next available routine appointment was on the 29 May with a GP.

The service told us remote appointments such as telephone consultations were offered but there was a low uptake.

The service told us that home visits were available for people who were housebound through a community run rapid response service. This service was designed to see people who were housebound that required a visit quickly and was designed to prevent a possible hospital admission.

The service told us they were expanding and introducing a more comprehensive online appointment booking system but did not give a timeframe for this. The service told us that the new system would still allow people to book appointments in person or by telephone (for example people without digital access) while increasing the online booking facility.

Appointments were available outside working hours through the Primary Care Network hub service. This service allowed people to access to healthcare appointments during extended hours so that there was a greater availability and choice of an appointment time.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were 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, both to the service as well as to CQC, was positive. The service told us they had a section on their web site which requested comments as well as complaints.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care. They adjusted support to ensure equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The service had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and travellers.

Staff used appropriate 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.

The service told us they attended external Gold Standard Framework meetings. These meetings formed a structured program designed to improve end-of-life care in the UK. It included advanced care planning and other aspects of palliative care. The service attended this alongside community nurses who were responsible for the home visits that implemented the care.