Alderwood 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 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.

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.

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 did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service performed lower than the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey in relation to access to the service. This showed people could not always access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs. Whilst 71% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as good, which was comparable with the national average of 73%, only 38% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact the GP service by phone. This was below the national average of 57%. The provider showed us how they had audited the time people waited for the phone to be answered. The longest wait was recorded as 36 minutes, with peak demand on a Monday morning. We reviewed staff rotas and found that staffing levels regarding answering the phone were the same on a Monday morning as all other mornings. A staff analysis had not been completed to ensure additional support to answer telephone calls at peak times had been completed. However, we did find that on the day and pre-bookable appointments with nurses and GPs were readily available once patients’ calls were answered.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. This included enabling people to book appointments over the phone, in the surgery or by completing an electronic form on their website. However, the electronic forms were triaged by a non-clinical member of staff who had not received training to carry out this role.

The majority of appointments were bookable on the day with a some available for patients to pre-book. Patients could book appointments at the practice, over the telephone or on-line. Consultations were either face to face or by telephone. People who requested a telephone consultation were provided with a 2-3 hour slot unless extenuating circumstances meant they needed a specific time. Staff told us they would inform the GP if this was required. Extended access appointments were provided by the Primary Care Network and were available between 3.30 – 8pm weekdays and 9am – 1pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

Treatment and consultation rooms were available on the ground floor. There was level access to the building and an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service. Designated parking spaces were available for people with mobility difficulties.

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. Alerts were added to the records of people who required additional support from staff. For example, people with a hearing or visual impairment and people who were anxious when sitting in a crowded area such as the waiting room. Double appointments were offered for people whose 1st language was not English and a translation service was required.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. For example, a member of the nursing team had put forward plans and proposals to create a dedicated waiting room for people with neurodivergent conditions. The practice was an accredited Royal College of General Practitioners and NHS Veteran Friendly practice. Staff were specially trained to understand military medical histories, providing targeted care, priority treatment, and referrals for ex-forces personnel and their families.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people were supported to register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff told us many people from the travelling community were registered with the practice and gave examples of how they had supported this group of people. 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 positively in the feedback from the Friends and Family Test shared by people who had used the service.
 

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.