Ramanathan 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 service 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, 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.

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

The service performed below the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. People could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. However, the survey showed 53% of respondents described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and the top floor, providing people with greater choice depending on their individual needs. The entrance to the service ensured easy access, and the service had introduced a doorbell access option to alert reception staff when people required assistance to enter the building. These changes helped the service respond to feedback and support people who may otherwise experience barriers to accessing care. This was reflected in the National GP Patient data where 77% found the reception and administrative team at the service helpful however this was slightly below the 85% national average.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequalities in their care, treatment and outcomes. They tailored care, support and treatment to meet individual needs and help reduce barriers to accessing services.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people's experiences and worked with local services to tackle health inequalities within the community. For example, the service held NHS App drop-in sessions for people using the service, supported by members of the reception team who provided guidance on how to access and use online systems. The provider reported that these sessions were well attended and had contributed to a 73% increase in NHS App uptake over a three-month period. Progress and engagement were regularly discussed within meetings, including those involving the Patient Participation Group (PPG).

The service had established a quiet room on the ground floor, which was accessible to people who wished to use it whilst waiting for appointments. Where appropriate, the room could also be used as a consultation room for people who felt more comfortable in a quieter environment. This demonstrated the provider's commitment to making reasonable adjustments to support positive experiences and equitable outcomes.

Staff understood the importance of providing inclusive care and made adjustments to support equity in people's experiences and outcomes. They followed processes to ensure people could register with the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness and members of Traveller communities.

Staff used systems to gather and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the positive feedback received from people who used the service.

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.