Park Royal 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

Responsive - We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

We assessed 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores from these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was Good. Our rating for this key question remains Good.

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

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 that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They offered appointments on a Saturday and worked closely with the Primary Care Network (PCN) enhanced access hub to offer evening and additional weekend appointments from the practice location. The PCN also hosted additional services from the practice location, including spirometry testing, walk-in phlebotomy, seasonal vaccination campaigns and covid vaccination services.

In response to patient feedback, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had made improvements to the appointment and telephone systems. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The service was located on the ground floor of a hospital and there was level access and automatic doors at the entrance. The results of the National GP Patient Survey (2024) showed that the practice was scoring in line with the national and local averages for indicators on accessibility.

The practice provided care to residents in a local care home. The practice had increased the number of clinical sessions offered to residents at the care home to support those with complex clinical needs who were at higher risk of hospital admission. There were also dedicated clinicians who reviewed these residents, with cover arrangements in place to cover staff leave. The care home staff informed us that there had been occasional delays in the practice’s response to some urgent queries, however after these concerns were escalated to the senior leaders the care home had noticed improvements and timely responses from the practice.

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.

The practice were accredited to provide tailored support for armed forces veterans and their families and there was a dedicated clinician who had specialist knowledge of military related health conditions and veteran specific health services.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively 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 understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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.

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.