Queens Park 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.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers.

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.

The service performed in line with national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 75% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of this service as being good, compared to a national average of 75%. Moreover, 53% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the service by phone, compared to a national average of 53%. In addition, 66% of people responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice, compared to a national average of 70%. In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. Staff we spoke with told us access was determined by patient need and they worked to accommodate people. For example, staff had established processes to support people requiring flexible access to appointments. This included offering late evening and weekend appointments through the extended access hub. Neither the service nor CQC had received any complaints regarding access in the previous 12 months. Staff members spoken with told us the practice used a total triage system, and all appointment requests were overseen by a GP. The process was continuously monitored and reviewed on a daily basis. Treatment and consulting rooms were available on the ground floor, with a dropped kerb outside the building to ensure ease of access to the service. Interpreter services were available for those people whose first language was not English. For people with a hearing impairment, a hearing loop was also 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 any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, the practice had access to a social prescriber who was available to provide support and advice to patients, where required.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, staff told us how they utilised a larger treatment room when needed to accommodate wheelchair users, booking a double appointment to ensure the patient had enough time. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive.

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.