Earl's Court 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.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this inspection, 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.

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 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. Staff we spoke with were able to provide examples of how they had adjusted care to meet people’s individual circumstances and preferences.

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 providers to meet the needs of its population. The service had tailored its provision to meet diverse needs, for example, building relationships to promote good mental health. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community and mental health teams.

National GP Patient Survey (2025) results showed that 57% of respondents reported being able to consult with their preferred health professional compared to 42% nationally.

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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed 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.

The National GP Patient Survey (2025) results showed that 95% of respondents said theywere involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment (91% nationally).

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 people’s feedback, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There was a triage system to assist staff to prioritise patients according to clinical needs.

The most National GP Patient Survey (2025) results showed 87% of respondents reported their overall experience of contacting their GP practice was good. This was above the national average (70%). These findings were echoed in comments people made as part of this assessment. People commented that they found it straightforward to book an appointment with a GP, nurse or other professional. During our site visit, we observed that face-to-face appointments were available the same or next day with sufficient capacity to cover urgent and routine problems.

The service made adjustments to enable people to access the service. For example, they could provide extended appointments for people with more complex needs. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and the premises were physically accessible.

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. They had identified particular local health needs, for example, serious mental illness, and looked at ways they could support people in the community.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations and community health services 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.

The service had processes to ensure people could register with the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The service was also signed up to the ‘Safe surgery’ scheme to ensure the service was accessible even if people did not possess official identify documents. The staff told us that they were more confident about protecting people’s rights in this situation as a result of joining the scheme. The clinicians were aware of specialist resources available to veterans of the armed forces and had referred people to these.

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.