Guidepost Medical Group

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 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Score: 3
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 was delivered in a person-centred way, tailored to individuals’ physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.
Patients were generally supported to understand their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care. National GP Patient Survey data showed that 89% of patients felt involved as much as they wanted in decisions about their care and treatment, compared to 92% within the local Integrated Care System (ICS) and 91% across England.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of its population, ensuring care was joined-up, flexible, and supported choice and continuity. It tailored its services to reflect the needs of the local community.
The practice worked in partnership with other services, including through the Primary Care Network (PCN), to deliver more integrated and specialist support. This included initiatives such as the Healthy Heart Bus, which provided patient education, delivered health talks and undertake health checks, including weight and blood pressure monitoring. Care coordinators played a key role in supporting patients, particularly those with complex or specific needs, by providing personalised support and helping to coordinate their care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

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.
Complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. People could provide feedback through a variety of routes, including verbal comments, the Friends and Family Test, written complaints, and the National GP Patient Survey. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from feedback was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, the service had received feedback from patients and was taking steps to improve the reception environment to enhance the overall patient experience.

The service did not always ensure people could access care, support, and treatment in a timely way. Data from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey and feedback from the local community indicated that some people found it difficult to access the service. In the 2025 survey, 40% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by phone, compared to 57% within the local Integrated Care System (ICS) and 53% nationally.
In addition, 48% of patients found it easy to contact the practice via its website, which was below the ICS average of 53% and the national average of 51%. Similarly, 45% of patients reported it was easy to use the NHS App to contact the practice, compared to 54% within the ICS and 49% nationally. Patient feedback also highlighted some difficulties with the eConsult system.
Leaders told us that support was available for patients unable to access online services, with administrative staff providing assistance where needed. A call-back facility was in place to help reduce call waiting times, and we saw evidence that patients who selected this option were contacted in a timely manner, although uptake varied.
The practice had processes in place to improve access for vulnerable groups. For example, longer appointments were available for patients with a learning disability, and home visits were offered where appropriate, including for housebound patients. Staff also carried out regular ward rounds at local care homes to support continuity of care.
Patients could access services in a variety of ways, including online, in person, and by telephone. The premises were accessible, with treatment rooms located on the ground floor.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most at risk of inequality in their experience or outcomes and tailored care, support, and treatment in response. Feedback from people using the service was mostly positive, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination.
Leaders proactively sought to address barriers that could affect people’s experience, working with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to help reduce health inequalities.
The provider had processes in place to support patient registration; however, there were no specific arrangements in place for registering people experiencing homelessness.

Most 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. However, supporting documentation such as capacity assessments and records of discussions was not consistently available in the sample reviewed. This meant we could not be assured that decisions were always made in line with relevant legislation and guidance.