South Saxon House 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 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 made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Pre-bookable and on the day appointments were available. An online consultation option was also available. Extended appointments were provided to people with learning disabilities.

The National GP Patient Survey (2025) showed that 76% of respondents felt that it was easy to contact their GP by phone, compared to 53% nationally. Data from the National GP Patient Survey 2026, which was published following our on-site assessment, showed this remained about the same at 75% compared to the national average of 57%.

People we spoke to during our assessment told us they were usually able to obtain an appointment easily by telephone or by attending in person. However, people told us it could be more difficult to access the service when calling early in the morning. The service told us they had reception staff turnover in April 2026, and this had impacted reception efficiencies. They told us that new staff had recently started in the service.

Leaders told us that they had started to use telephone analytics data to review the demand of people using the service and to monitor performance of its’ telephone system. They had identified demand was greater early in the morning and had recently adjusted the reception staffing duties to help improve telephone access at this time. Meeting minutes reviewed from April 2026 supported this demonstrating the service plans to implement monthly reporting to aid on going monitoring and improvement.

The service was open from 8am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday and provided extended hours access on Tuesdays and Wednesdays until 8pm. The service had adjusted extended hours provision following feedback from people who use the service. For example, the service now provided telephone appointments 2 evenings per week with a GP.

The service provided support to a nearby care home. The GP spoke with care home staff by telephone twice a week and visited the home every other week.

The service had step free access with an automatic entrance door to ensure ease of access. There was space available for wheelchairs and prams. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. People we spoke to during our assessment told us staff were ready to assist them when they arrived for an appointment. Interpretation services were available.

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.
Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address local health inequalities. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances.
Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service. Evidence was shared which demonstrated actions taken in response to feedback received regarding the communication of annual health checks and how learning had been shared with staff. The focus was to reinforce the importance of person-centred, inclusive communication that respects individual preferences, promotes equality and improves people’s experience.
 

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.