Burdwood 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 inspection, we rated this key question as Good. At this inspection, the rating remains the same.

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

The practice performed above the national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey regarding access. This showed 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 practice website. For example:

• 57% of respondents to the survey said they found it easy to get through to this service by telephone, compared to a national average of 53%.
• 58% of respondents to the survey said they found it easy to contact this service using their website, compared to a national average of 51%.
• 69% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%.

Patient feedback regarding access was collected and reviewed as part of this inspection. CQC received in excess of 185 items of patient feedback via our website. The vast majority of feedback regarding access was positive, with comments highlighting the ease of access and the speed of using the online access tool. However, we also received feedback which highlighted concerns regarding the online access tool and the barriers this had created.

The negative feedback we received was reviewed, anonymised and themed into areas for the practice to review. Themes identified within the negative feedback related to access and appointments, specifically the online appointment and triage tool. The practice responded positively to CQC sharing the themes and said whilst the triage and appointment system was under consistent review to ensure patients continued to access services and appointments in a way and at a time that suits them, the practice will work to address the patient concerns.

In response to feedback from patients and staff alongside practice performance dashboards, changes had been made to improve access. For example, the practice reviewed how they managed workflow such as clinical correspondence and administrative tasks, in order to increase clinicians to focus on patients as opposed administrative correspondence. Data provided by the practice showed this had increased clinician availability and further improved access.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and there was an automatic door to ensure ease of access to the service.

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

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. This included work and regular involvement with the West Berkshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment to assess the current and future health, care and well-being needs of the local population.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Leaders were aware that whilst digitalisation can increase the quality and efficiency of services, not all patients can access these services, thus leading to digital exclusion. To address this, the practice continued to identify and addressed barriers which might stop certain groups accessing essential services. This included maintaining a growing register of patients who had agreed, alternate, non-digital pathways to access the practice.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people, Asylum Seekers, the canal community and Travellers. The practice was also a registered ‘Safe Surgery’ and supported patients or potential patients who were homeless, in temporary accommodation or seeking asylum. A ‘Safe Surgery’ is a GP practice with a declared commitment to addressing the barriers people face in accessing healthcare or support.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not have access to the internet, the most recent in-house survey had over 1,400 patient responses. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive.

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.