Abbey Medical Centre

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.

As part of our comprehensive assessment during our last assessment in October 2022, we rated this key question as requires improvement and issued a requirement notice. At this assessment, improvements had been made and the rating has changed to good.

The practice increased its scores in many of the indicators in the 2025 National GP Patient Survey compared to the scores we looked at during the 2022 survey, including access to the practice and overall satisfaction. Scores in these indicators were above the local GP average and national average scores for almost all indicators. From our review of the practices’ complaints policy and complaints log, we found they were managing complaints appropriately. The practice engaged with the Patient Participation Group to work collaboratively to improve systems of communication.

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 received 115 responses to the 2025 National GP Patient Survey, a completion rate of 15%. Results from the survey showed that 83% of patients felt that the health professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last GP appointment. This was higher than the local average GP score of 81% and higher than the national average score of 86%, and an improvement on the 62% score we identified during their last inspection in 2022. Eighty two percent of patients who responded found the reception and administrative team at the practice helpful. This was above the local average GP score of 77% and the national average score of 83%.

We saw evidence of the Friends and Family (FFT) data for the practice. Feedback received was predominantly positive. The practice analysed feedback received monthly and actioned any negative feedback.

The practice told us that it considered the demographics of the practice population, offered reasonable adjustments where required and took people’s preferences into consideration during appointments and when providing information. The practice understood the needs of its population and carried out initiatives to assist patients in their care and wellbeing and encouraged patients to be involved in decisions relating to their care. For example, the practice sent messages to patients observing Ramadan to attend an educational course about self-management of diabetes, held by the practice GPs. The practice provided information to patients in formats to help patients understand their care, treatment and conditions as well as having access to interpreters, the provision of longer appointments where required and conducting home visits where needed.

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 working in partnership with other services, including other practices within their Primary Care Network, to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice signposted patients to community services where required, including social prescribers and dieticians. The practice provided services to a local care home and conducted home visits for patients where they were unable to attend the practice. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, taking steps to understand the religious beliefs of patients and sharing information across services to ensure that the patient’s wishes were known and adhered to. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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

The practice ensured the patient population had access to information that was beneficial to their health. The practice provided access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The practice had staff who spoke several different languages who were able to assist patients. The practice had a hearing loop system. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records and routinely sent direct messages to send information links to patients after clinical consultations. The practice told us that it provided support to patients in using online services and where patients were unable to use online services, they provided assistance over the telephone or in person at the practice.

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.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed 84% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last appointment, which had increased from the 62% score we identified during the last inspection in 2022. This was above the local average GP score of 82% but below national average score of 87%. The practice had increased its score in this question from 84% achieved in 2024. Ninety three percent of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in discussions about their care and treatment during their last appointment. This was above the local average GP score of 88% and the national average score of 91%.

The practice reviewed data from Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback received. We saw FFT feedback received was predominantly positive. The practice analysed feedback provided and had put in place actions to address any negative feedback received.

The practice had a Patient Participation Group (PPG) which engaged with the practice on a regular basis. We spoke with two members of the PPG who told us that the practice interacted positively with the group. They told us the practice had made improvements in the last few years, and any feedback provided is taken on board with the practice management team which they tried to address.

The practice had identified ways for people to share feedback and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Information was available for patients about how to make a complaint at the practice and on the practice’s website. The practice had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. We saw evidence that the practice had analysed the significant events and complaints received over the previous 12 months and had identified where actions needed to be taken and improvements made. We reviewed a sample of complaints and were assured patient complaints were being handled and responded to appropriately. The practices’ complaint policy did not reference the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman, however the Ombudsman was referenced to at the end of each complaint response to patients. The practice shared its analysis of significant events and complaints with staff members to ensure that learning was embedded. Significant events and complaints were discussed at regular clinical and practice meetings, and the practice held an annual meeting to discuss themes identified. Minutes from staff meetings were saved onto the shared system so that staff who were absent could familiarise themselves with discussions.

In our last inspection, we identified results from the 2022 National GP Patient Survey, which showed that 42% of patients found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that satisfaction had increased, as results showed 64% of patients found it easy to access the practice by phone. This is above the local average of 51% and the national average of 53%. There was a continued upward satisfaction trend as scores from the survey showed yearly growth (48% in 2023 and 59% in 2024). Results from the 2025 survey also showed that 59% of patients found it easy to get through to the practice using their website, compared to the local average of 44% and national average of 48%.

The practice informed us they analysed the results of the National GP Patient Survey and made several changes since the last inspection in October 2022 that were designed to improve patient satisfaction in accessing the practice. This included a new telephony system that featured a call-back system, increasing number of appointments, the recruitment of reception staff and adding an additional phone line. The practice informed us they routinely checked call data using the GP Appointments Data Dashboard and analytic platforms. The practice submitted data from an analytics platform that showed the practice were providing sufficient capacity in appointments for week commencing 23 February 2026.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experiences or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service through the Friends and Family Test and through the Patient Participation Group was predominantly 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 inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. Patients in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and travellers. The practice signed up to become a Safe Surgeries practice and told us that it provided services to patients who were asylum seekers. The practice had a homeless policy which set out the principles under which the practice worked with homeless patients. 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.

The practice recognised there were patients with mental health issues and carried out initiatives to reach out to them. The practice invited patients to attend health and wellbeing pop-up clinics and drop-in sessions to engage in conversations about mental health.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including end of life care.

The practice worked collaboratively with other healthcare providers to support patients with end-of-life care. The practice discussed patients receiving end-of-life care at clinical meetings and liaised with the relevant teams, such as cardiologists and response nurses to ensure a comprehensive management plan was in place. Advanced care planning discussions were held about long term care with patients and their relatives where appropriate. This information was shared with other services when necessary.