Stroud Green Medical Clinic

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 practice 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 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 practice made sure that people could access the care,supportand treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice performed better than the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the practice when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the practice’s website. For example, 84% of respondents to the survey find it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone compared to a local average of 62% and national average of 57%, 79% of respondents to the survey find it easy to get through to this GP practice using their website compared to a local average of 57% and national average of 58%, 74% of respondents to the survey find it easy to get through to this GP practice using their National health service (NHS) app compared to a local average of 54% and national average of 54%. 86% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of the practice as being good, compared to a local average of 75% and national average of 77%.

In response to feedback from people who used the practice, Leaders had made changes to improve access. The practice used an online triage system, through which patient requests were reviewed by a GP to determine clinical urgency and the most appropriate type of appointment. In addition, patients were able to book appointments online without completing a triage form. Direct booking options were available for telephone and face-to-face appointments with a GP or physician associate, childhood immunisations and cervical screening with a nurse, asthma and medication reviews with pharmacists, diabetes reviews, and NHS Health Checks with the health care assistant. Arrangements had also been made for patients who were less confident using digital systems, as appointments could be booked by telephone or in person at the practice.

A system was used to identify and digitally flag vulnerable patients, including older people, housebound patients, military veterans and those with specific health conditions. Regular welfare checks were undertaken to help ensure people's needs continued to be met.

People were supported to access services in ways that met their individual needs. A telephone translation service and website translation facility were available for patients whose first language was not English.Support for patients with hearing impairment was provided through access to British sign language interpreters, and an induction loop was available in the reception area.

The premises were accessible to people with mobility needs and wheelchair users. Accessibility features included a ramp, accessible doorbell, disabled toilet and ground floor consultation room. The practicecomplied withthe accessible information standard,having easy read materialon a range of topicsavailable for patients with learning disabilities.

The practice had developed an internal Artificial Intelligent (AI) led IT care navigation system to support consistent access to appropriate care. Reception and care navigation staff used the system to determine the most suitable appointment type, level of urgency, clinician and signposting route based on patients' needs. Red-flag guidance sourced from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and North Central London (NCL) guidance, together with infection prevention and control advice, was incorporated into the system to support the timely escalation of urgent presentations. This supported patients being directed to the most appropriate service at the earliest opportunity and promoted consistency in booking decisions.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about peoplewho aremost likely toexperienceinequality inexperienceor outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in responseto 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 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. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the practice, 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 practice, which was positive.

The practice had developed an internal IT system to support the collection, analysis and use of patient feedback. One of the system’s functionalities enabled Friends and Family Test feedback to be reviewed through a dashboard, allowing emerging themes, compliments and concerns to be identified. Feedback was discussed at practice meetings and shared with staff to identify learning.

The practice had implemented a wellbeing inequalities project to identify vulnerable patients who had not engaged with the practice for six months. These patients had been proactively contacted to check on their wellbeing. As a result, eight patients were identified as requiring additional support, and appointments were arranged to help meet their needs.

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.