Dr Manjit Singh

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 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.

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. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP National Patient Survey were slightly below local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 63% of people said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment. This was below the local average of 71% and the national average of 74%.

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

The practice worked in partnership with other organisations to decide how best to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of professionals.

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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with some services to meet the needs of its patient population, but we found limited evidence of how to refer to the social prescriber. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for patients to support them to understand how to access services.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed how to access their care records.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person or via the practice website. We found there was limited documented evidence to demonstrate the learning from complaints was shared with the practice team. On reviewing minutes of staff meetings, we found 1 complaint had been discussed in the past 12 months. We were told complaints were verbal and dealt with on the day, however there was no documented evidence to support what conversations had been held and the outcome of the complaint.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 73% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was below the local average of 84% and the national average of 87%. We found the outcomes of the GP national patient survey were not discussed with staff. We were told that an inhouse survey had been planned in December 2025. Questionnaires had been given out to patients, but on the day of the onsite assessment, the leadership team were unable to provide evidence of the survey questionnaires, the results or action plan. Following the onsite visit, we received confirmation that the completed surveys had been found. We requested a copy of the surveys and the results; these were not provided.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. The results for April 2026, a total of 38 patients had responded. The results of the FFT showed 63% of patients who had attended the practice said the practice was very good/good. We were unable to gain assurances from the leadership team that they had identified areas for improvement and had effective processes in place to gather patient feedback.

We were told by the leadership team that a patient participation group (PPG) had recently been implemented, and a meeting had taken place. We spoke with 1 member of the group who told us that a meeting had been held sometime during 2025 but was not aware of another being organised. The PPG member spoke positively about the practice and staff. We were told that minutes of the meeting had not been shared with the patients and on checking the practice website the last PPG minutes were dated 2015.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment people received.

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

Patients could access appointments by telephone and online. Most appointments were available for same day booking. The practice had effective arrangements in place to identify and prioritise patients according to clinical need. We spoke with several patients on the day of our assessment, all of whom reported high levels of satisfaction with access to appointments and praised the practice for its availability and responsiveness. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

The GP national patient survey showed 55% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was above the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week. Extended appointments were available for vulnerable people and those with a learning disability and extended hours appointments were available on a Monday and Tuesday evening. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact 111. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff for example nurses and a pharmacist. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and on Saturday through an arrangement with other local GP practices.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, ramp access and disabled toilet facilities were also available.

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

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, interpreters were available. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. 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.

People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

People we spoke with on the day of assessment was positive about the services provided. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

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 people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms were in place and available within the clinical record.