Gill Medical 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 in December 2015, we rated this key question 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 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 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 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, the service had regular meetings called daily huddles to ensure continuity of care for the patients. There were registers on the clinical system for various patient groups and there were alerts on the system to notify the staff about the care needs of the people.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There were leaflets in various languages available at the waiting area for the patients. The practice had access to interpreter services. Information provided met the Accessible information standard. Staff assisted the people to use the NHS App correctly 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 practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. We saw evidence of compliments from the patients about how the practice supported them.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the previous National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. The practice conducted internal patient surveys to ensure the feedback from patients were acted upon promptly.

The National GP Patient survey data of 2026, people were generally satisfied with the level of access to services by contacting the service on the phone. The data showed that 58% of the respondents found it easy to contact the practice on the phone compared with the local (62%) and national (57%) averages. Seventy- four per cent of the respondents had a good overall experience of contacting the practice which was in line with the local (73%) and national (73%) averages. Forty per cent of the respondents found it easy to contact the practice using their website which was below the local (57%) and national (58%) averages. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.People could access services Mondays-Fridays 8am to 6:30pm and 8am to 5pm on Saturdays.

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 regardless of their circumstances. 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. The patients’ wishes for their preferred place of death was taken into consideration of their end-of-life care through advanced care planning and coordination of the care. Mortality reviews were conducted by the practice to ensure patients got the right care and did not get admitted to the hospital when approaching the final days of their lives. This information was shared with other services when necessary.