Portway Family 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 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.

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.

The practice told us that they regularly involved patients in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment that met their needs. Staff had been trained in Equality and Diversity, Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

The practice demonstrated a commitment to continuity and quality of care through documented and personalised approaches. For example, 114 patients had been identified as vulnerable, with reasonable adjustments recorded and implemented to meet their individual needs. These patients were prioritised where clinically appropriate, with care tailored to their specific circumstances, including continuity of care alerts to support reviews and appointments with the same clinician whenever possible. Patients requiring additional non-clinical support were also referred to the Social Prescribing Team, which provided a holistic, person-centred approach to addressing wider health and wellbeing needs.

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

The service demonstrated a good understanding of the diverse health and care needs of local people and communities. This ensured care was joined-up, flexible, and thoughtfully designed to support choice and continuity. Clinicians maintained continuity wherever possible to provide consistent, person‑centred support for patients with complex care needs.

The practice operated as the lead organisation within the primary care network (PCN), with a GP Partner serving as the Clinical Director. Leaders and staff worked collaboratively with a range of partner organisations and neighbouring practices to effectively meet the needs of their patient population. They had tailored their approach to reflect the diversity of the community by building relationships to ensure people could access compassionate and reliable care. For example, the practice held a world diabetes day event with health checks, weight management and lifestyle advice available for patients.

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

Information promoting health and wellbeing was readily available within the practice, and the website provided helpful resources to support health awareness and promotion. Patients were given access to clear information and signposting to help them understand how to access services. Interpreter services were available to support patient communication needs.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed how to access their care records and the practice website was accessible in a range of languages.

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.

Information on how to raise a complaint was readily accessible, with patients able to do so either in person or through the practice website. We found clear documented evidence showing that lessons learned from complaints were shared with the practice team. For instance, 22 complaints had been reviewed and investigated over the past 12 months to identify recurring themes, leading to improvements such as enhanced patient communication and more effective recall procedures.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 82% of patients say the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly below the local average of 84% and the national average of 87%. The practice reviewed feedback to make further improvements within the service. For example, a clinician-led patient feedback exercises was undertaken as part of continuing professional development.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. For example, the results for May 2026 showed 71% of patients rated the practice as good/very good.

90% of the feedback gathered onsite and to CQC was positive on the care and treatment people received. We also saw evidence of the practice’s commitment to patient feedback through the display of a ‘you said, we did’ board, which highlighted actions the practice had taken in response to patient feedback.

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

The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as complaints and feedback from patients. The GP national patient survey showed 49% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was in line with the local average of 48% and below the national average of 53%.

Following patient feedback regarding telephone access and appointment availability, the practice looked at ways to develop equitable access further for all patients. In response, it introduced a new Artificial Intelligence (AI) receptionist system to enhance telephone access and improve the patient experience. The system was designed to manage incoming calls, generate online triage requests, improve operational efficiency, and reduce call waiting times. It also helped to streamline administrative processes, enabling staff to dedicate more time to other important aspects of their roles and supporting a more effective use of practice resources. At the time of our assessment, the system was in its early stages of implementation, having been introduced approximately 4 weeks previously. Appropriate risk mitigation processes were in place, including mechanisms to identify and escalate potential red-flag concerns or speak to a receptionist for further assistance. The leadership team continued to monitor performance data and patient feedback to ensure any necessary adjustments could be made. Whilst feedback from patients on the new system was mixed, with some individuals reporting difficulties in its use, early performance data indicated a number of positive outcomes. For example, the proportion of calls requiring receptionist intervention had reduced by 58%, while the overall call answer rate had increased from 68% to 91.5%. In addition, online consultation submissions had risen by 22%, and average call waiting times had decreased from 49 minutes to 28 minutes.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week from 8am and 6.30pm. The practice lead on extended access and hosted all extended access appointments across the Primary Care network (PCN) from 6:30pm to 8:00pm on weekdays and from 9:00am to 5:00pm on Saturdays. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff for example, nurses, advanced care practitioner, GP’s and pharmacists. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, disabled parking and disabled toilet facilities were also available. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact 111.

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 provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place and access to interpreters was available. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability.

The provider had effective processes in place to ensure all patients could register with the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness. Staff used a range of methods to gather and review feedback from people using the service, including patients who did not speak English or who had limited access to the internet. For example, patient views were collected through both face-to-face interactions and the practice website, helping to ensure feedback opportunities were accessible to a wider population. In addition, patients, colleagues, and medical students were invited to provide feedback on their experiences of consultations or contact with GPs. The practice used this feedback to identify learning opportunities and make improvement.

People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. For example, in response to patient feedback about limited access to a female GP, the practice recruited a female GP to increase patient choice and better meet the needs and preferences of its population.

The practice worked collaboratively with other local practices and community partners to help address health inequalities within the local population. For example, the practice supported and hosted cancer awareness events to promote early detection and improve access to health information and organised an annual Christmas foodbank initiative to provide practical support to people experiencing financial hardship.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

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 practice held regular multidisciplinary palliative care meetings to proactively review and coordinate care for patients with palliative and end-of-life care needs. 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.