The Warren 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 2017, we rated this key question as Good.

At this assessment, the rating remains the same because we found no issues with person-centred care, equality, diversity and inclusion.

This service scored 71 (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, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of vaccination programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. For example, the service ensured members of staff visited places of worship such as mosques as a primary care initiative to provide information on vaccinations that would benefit the patient population.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had access to interpreting services and double appointments were booked for those who required such services. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Staff at the service were multi-lingual which helped with communication and information sharing with the patient population.

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 because of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The National GP Patient Survey 2025 data showed that 36% of the respondents found it easy to contact this GP practice on the phone compared to the local (60%) and national (53%) averages. Thirty percent of the respondents said it was easy contacting the practice using their website compared to local (52%) and national (51%) averages. The practice completed an analysis of the GP Patient survey results and a decision was made to answer phone calls within 10 minutes, however its impact on patient experience was yet to be known. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and the doors were automated.

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. 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, including those in vulnerable circumstances. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using theservice, 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. This information was shared with other services when necessary.