Dr Telesilla Gueret Wardle Also known as The Christchurch Hall 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 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, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Responsive: Equity in access and Equity in experience and outcomes.

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 people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice operated from 8am to 7pm on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and from 8am to 6.30pm on Wednesday and Friday. Appointments could be booked by calling the practice or using the NHS App. It offered face to face and telephone appointments. Patient feedback was positive regarding the continuity of care the practice provided.

Standard appointments were 15 minutes long. Home visits were provided in appropriate circumstances, according to clinical need. Double length appointments were booked for care reviews for people with a learning disability, dementia, mental health needs, complex conditions or communication difficulties.

We saw from the practice’s staff rotas that GPs worked various clinical sessions throughout the week, including morning, afternoon and out-of-hours. The practice nurse worked 2.5 days a week, all day on Monday and Friday and on Wednesday afternoon. The 2 practice pharmacists worked remotely; the Primary Care Network (PCN) prescriber pharmacist worked onsite three days a week and the PCN social prescriber worked there 1 day a week.

The practice generally performed better than local averages in the 2026 National GP Patient Survey in relation to being a responsive service. 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, 88% of respondents to the survey were positive regarding how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone, compared to local average of 62%. (National average 57%)
• 62% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using its website, compared to the local average of 57%. (National average 58%)
• 67% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, compared with the local average of 54%. (National average 54%)
• 79% of respondents described their experience of contacting their GP practice as good, compared with the local average of 73%. (National average 73%)
• 75% of respondents were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment, compared with the local average of 62%. (National average 57%)
• 62% of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, compared with the local average of 68%. (National average 69%)

The practice had a policy setting out reasonable adjustments to services for patients who might have additional needs. The website had an accessibility menu facility, which included a number of features such as increased font size and contrast changes to improve the experience of people with a visual impairment. We saw the practice offered a language phone translation service and staff spoke a range of languages other than English. Staff told us the practice website was shortly to be reviewed, and auto-translate facilities would be considered for inclusion.

A British Sign Language practitioner could be booked, and a hearing loop was available for patients with hearing impairment. The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard, having easy read material on a range of topics available for patients with learning disabilities.

The premises were accessible to, and had facilities for, people with mobility issues, with staff able to assist when needed.

We saw the practice had various protocols to ensure equity of access to services. These included policies and support guidance in relation to digital exclusion, ex-offenders, refugees and asylum seekers, homeless people and travellers. The practice was accredited as a Safe Surgery.

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.

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, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. The practice had protocols relating to the provision of care and support to victims of domestic abuse, the LGBTQ+ community, veterans and sex workers. Staff had received equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights training.

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, including those in vulnerable circumstances, such as homeless people and Travellers, could register.

The practice operated the ICB’s care model for managing a wider range of long-term conditions. This provided patients with a check and test appointment, a health review, test results and care plan, a discussion appointment and a follow up.

We received feedback from patients using our website, which included the following comments:

• [Staff] take the time to listen to my concerns, explain everything clearly, and make me feel heard and supported. I never feel rushed during appointments.
• All the team is amazing. Always taking in account all the worries I have and really trying to help me. Admin team has been on top of the things always.
• I have always felt heard, supported, and respected.
• The reception team is also friendly and helpful, making it as easy as possible to book appointments and answer any questions. Overall, I have always felt that my health and wellbeing genuinely matter to everyone at the practice.

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.