The Connaught Square Practice

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 in August 2018, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment in December 2025, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice 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 patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. The national GP patient survey data (2025) showed that 89% of the respondents felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

The practice 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 practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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

Information to promote the take up 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 practice 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 practice’s policy. Over the past 12 months, the practice had received 11 complaints. There was clear evidence of learning from complaints, and staff were able to describe improvements made in response to patient feedback. For example, the practice offered customer service training to all staff members and reminded all staff to follow the correct protocol.

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

The practice had made reasonable adjustments when patients found it hard to access services. We observed that there was a step at the main entrance to the premises. However, a portable ramp was available to support patients in accessing the building.

We noted toilet facilities were located on the lower ground (basement) floor only and were not accessible to patients with mobility difficulties. The practice was situated in a Grade II listed building, which limited the extent to which structural alterations could be made to improve accessibility.

The practice offered longer appointments for people with a learning disability. 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.

The practice informed us that the telephone system included a queueing facility and remote monitoring via a dashboard.

According to the National GP Patient Survey data (2025), 56% of respondents found it easy to access the practice by phone, which was above the national average of 53%.

The 2 Patient Participation Group (PPG) members and a patient we spoke with during the assessment were satisfied with the access provided by the practice. They were happy with the telephone system and reported being able to book appointments when needed.

The practice had 11,420 registered patients. On the day of the assessment, we found the practice offered 109 hours of GP clinical sessions per week. In addition, 1 full time clinical pharmacist (employed by the primary care network) was working at the practice.

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, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any 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 provider 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.

Staff were trained on equality and diversity.

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 DNACPR records were reviewed and updated according to the Mental Capacity Act. Care plans were updated according to the changing needs of the patients. The wishes of the patients were respected.