Christchurch 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 through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People could share their experience of the service through the Friends and Family Test (FFT) survey and the National GP-Patient Survey (GPPS). We reviewed feedback from the service’s FFT survey and found positive results in relation to recommending the service to friends and family. For example, in April 2025, the service received 48 feedback responses, of which 75% would recommend the service and rated the service as excellent or good. The service regularly reviewed feedback from people who used the service, identifying themes and trends during monthly meetings. Results from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 showed people’s overall experience of receiving person-centred care as positive. In particular, results showed clinicians listened to people’s concerns and acted with compassion, of which these indicators were in line local and national averages

Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s preferences and how these were taken into consideration when co-ordinating care. Where appropriate, carers and dependants were involved in decision-making and processes were in place to support shared decision-making about care and treatment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was continuity in people’s care and treatment. People were able to access care from their preferred clinician where appropriate, particularly for complex, long-term or ongoing health needs. Staff told us they prioritised continuity for people receiving end-of-life care, those with multiple long-term conditions and people requiring coordinated support from multiple agencies. Feedback received by CQC indicated care was joined up and clinicians were familiar people’s health histories and individual circumstances.

People received care and treatment that reflected their assessed needs and personal circumstances. Staff considered the needs and preferences of different groups of people, including those with protected characteristics, and made reasonable adjustments where required to support continuity of care. For example, the service offered flexible appointment arrangements, shared care planning with other services and tailored support for people who required additional assistance to access care or navigate health services.

The service worked in partnership with other organisations to meet the needs of people using the service and had tailored its provision to meet the diverse needs of the local community. For example, integrated primary care network (PCN) services contributed to continuity and shared decision‑making.

The service had developed relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of screening programmes, supported through the service’s social prescriber. For example, people were signposted to community-based initiatives including carer support group sessions.

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

During our assessment, we were provided evidence which demonstrated the service had met the Accessible Information Standards. Guidance was available for staff to support people in accessing information line with national guidelines. The service identified people who required additional support to engage with services, including those who were digitally excluded, people whose first language was not English and people with sensory impairments. For example, British Sign Language interpreter access, a hearing loop and reasonable adjustments for people with communication or cognitive needs. The service also provided information in alternative formats such as large print and braille.

Leaflets were available in the reception area and posters were displayed to provide information on the services available to them. People were also provided with information on how to access their medical records. A private room was available for people who were distressed or wished to discuss sensitive issues. There were arrangements to ensure confidentiality at the reception desk and during telephone calls. We assessed the service’s subject access request processes and found there were systems to manage and provide people’s information within timeframes set out in service policy.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Information was displayed on the service’s website and within the service’s premises to support people to share feedback and raise concerns or complaints.

During our assessment, we reviewed a sample of complaints, and these were investigated and responded to appropriately in line with service policy. The service had an effective system for monitoring and handling complaints and responding to feedback in an open and transparent way. Where appropriate, people were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

However, results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS) showed people felt they were less involved in decisions about their care and treatment during their last appointment compared with local and national averages. In response, staff provided examples of learning improvements made as a result of feedback, including offering extended appointments where required and enabled people to book appointments with their preferred clinician to support continuity of care.

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

The 2025 National GPPS results showed overall experience of contacting the service was in line with national averages. Whilst 74% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the service, comparative with the national average of 73%, people experienced difficulties accessing the service via the telephone. Data showed 38% of people found it easy to contact the service via telephone, compared with the national average of 57%.

We reviewed feedback sent directly to the Care Quality Commission and received 52 ‘Give Feedback on Care’ submissions as part of the assessment. Positive themes included urgent care needs were prioritised, good availability of same day appointments and a range of access options. However, feedback also highlighted delays in follow-up to blood test results and long telephone waiting times. In response, the service had reviewed telephone access data, including inbound call volumes and call abandonments.

We noted from telephone access data between January 2026 and June 2026, the average call waiting time exceeded 20 minutes in 6 out of the 26 weeks. The service had a policy threshold of 20 minutes, in line with national guidelines, before additional administrative support was provided to assist with answering calls. National guidelines also state call abandonment rate targets of below 10%. We found call abandonment rates exceeded 10% in all 26 weeks, ranging from 22% to 55%, during the reporting period. This increased the risk of people experiencing delays in accessing the service.

However, there were safety-netting processes to ensure the duty GP reviewed and contacted people whose online triage request indicated an urgent clinical need, when appointments were fully booked. The service also had an electronic triage system, which was monitored daily for to manage requests that could not be triaged or where no appointments were available.

The service offered extended access outside normal working hours, including appointments with a GP and a nurse practitioner on weekday evenings and Saturday mornings. The service had utilised primary care network (PCN) resources to provide co-ordinated care, including access to mental health practitioners, first contact physiotherapists and pharmacy technicians.

Peoples’ accessibility and communication needs were recorded in their clinical records. Staff were trained in the care navigation process to ensure people were directed to the most appropriate part of the service.

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

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders took proactive steps to identify and address barriers to improve people's experiences. They worked with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to address local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing inclusive care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. Staff told us they had completed relevant awareness training in supporting people with learning disabilities, autism and dementia.

The service had processes to ensure people could register with the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those whose first language was not English and those who faced digital exclusion. The service maintained a register of carers and offered annual health checks. We saw examples of local initiatives to help support carers within the community.

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.

The service’s community frailty team undertook physical health assessments with the aim of preventing unnecessary hospital admissions. In addition, the team provided regular reviews and ward rounds within local care homes. From our remote review of clinical records, we noted personalised care plans were discussed with people, their relatives, carers and health and social care professionals.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision-making and had access to policies to support them. People recorded on the service’s palliative care register were reviewed at monthly multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings, which focused on supporting vulnerable people and those living with frailty. The team assessed people and their home environments, discussed personal wishes and explored care needs, including future planning and treatment preferences. However, from a review of 4 clinical records, we found Do Not Attempt Cardio-pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and treatment escalation arrangements were documented in a Dorset Care Plan (a personalised document used by local health and social care services). Whilst these arrangements were within episodes of care, records were not always accessible across NHS services, or reviewed consistently in line with the service’s policy. In response, leaders told us they planned to introduce regular audits of DNACPR and Dorset Care Plans to ensure care arrangements remained appropriate and reflected people’s wishes. This had not been embedded at time of our assessment.