The Fullwell Avenue 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.

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.

National GP patient feedback was positive. For example, 72% had a good overall experience of contacting the practice which was higher than the local and national averages. The most recent GP Patient Survey data, from 2025, showed 70% of patients found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone, which was significantly higher than the local average of 51% and national average of 53%. However, only 35% of patients found it easy to contact the service using their website. This was lower than the local 47% national averages of 51%.

The service used Friends and Family Test (FFT) data and online reviews to drive improvements. They shared FFT results from April 2026 (130 responses) showed generally positive feedback about people’s experience, with most patients rating the service as very good (95) or good (27). Comments highlighted good customer service experience and helpful and supportive staff.

The service had a Managing access and patient demand policy to ensure all patients could access services inclusively when they needed to. Receptionists navigated patients to the appropriate service. All urgent cases were prioritised and triaged by a clinician on the day of request to ensure patients were seen in priority of risk to prevent admission to secondary care. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and there was level access and an automatic door at the entrance to the service. Patients had access to an enhanced access service from 6.30 pm to 10 pm on weekdays and all day at weekends.

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.

The GP national patient survey for 2025 does not request a response from patients who are specifically experiencing inequalities. Staff and leaders considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The service had designated staff who were trained to help patients who may feel digitally excluded.

Leaders 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 health inequalities. Staff used reasonable adjustment alerts in patient records to support people’s access to healthcare. Most staff were trained in equality and diversity and had completed learning disability and autism awareness training. 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. Minutes from PPG meetings showed leaders had listened to patients directly raising improvement points, and the practice had responded constructively.

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.