Dr John Segarajasinghe Also known as The Pine Street 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that 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.

The practice made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’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 2026 National GP Patient Survey data showed that 96% of respondents said that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, this was above the local average of 91% and national average of 92%. In addition.

Patients with caring responsibilities were identified and supported. Patients had access to a range of healthcare professionals so they could access the most appropriate care.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of patients 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 screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. Patients in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

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

The practices website containing a wide range of information, including how to book appointments, request prescriptions, access test results and find self-help resources.The website could also be translated into different languages to ensure patients could access information in a format they understood.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. A hearing loop system was located in reception, and staff were aware of how to use it.

Longer appointments were available for people who needed the support of translation services. Extended appointments were also available for neurodiverse people and people with a learning disability.

The practice made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Staff could refer patients with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

There were multiple ways for patients to provide comments about their care and treatment. This included through the NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT), verbal feedback, written feedback and GP National Patient Survey.

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 as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. Complaints were a standing agenda item at practice meetings. For example, we reviewed meeting minutes which showed complaints had been discussed, themes and trends had been identified, and learning had been shared with staff to support service improvement.

Staff were aware of the complaints procedure and told us they would advise patients how to make a complaint when appropriate. Our review of complaints showed they were handled openly and transparently, with timely investigations, appropriate apologies and actions taken to address concerns.

The practice made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice was open from 8am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday. In addition, the service provided extended hours clinics from 6:30pm to 8:00pm in the evening and from 8am to 8pm on weekends. When the practice was closed, patients were directed to the NHS 111 service or the local urgent care service for support, treatment and advice. Patient could access the service by telephone, online or in-person.

The practice performed better than the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This showed patients 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, 71% 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%, 54% 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%, 61% 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%. 88% 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%.

The practice operated from a multi-storey shared building, with treatment rooms available on the ground and first floor. There were accessible toilets on the ground floor.

Patients 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 practicecomplied withthe accessible information standard,having easy read materialon a range of topicsavailable for people with a learning disability.

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

Staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patient’s experience and worked with local organisations to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in patient’s experience and outcomes.

The practice had processes to ensure patients could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless patient and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from patient using the service, 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 patients were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they have the mental capacity to do so.

During our clinical searches, we found that that DNACPR had not been coded on the clinical system. However, staff explained that these records were held on a separate electronic system which operated alongside the clinical record system. The system alerted staff to the presence of a DNACPR decision when a patient record was accessed and provided direct access to the relevant documentation. Staff told us this system was also accessible to external healthcare providers, including ambulance services, community teams and district nurses, to support the sharing of appropriate information across services. Following our feedback, evidence was provided that the relevant DNACPR had been coded on the clinical system.