Asplands Medical Centre

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 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 people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service worked to ensure people could access care in a way that met their individual needs. A range of access routes was available, including online consultations, telephone contact and face‑to‑face appointments. Leaders regularly reviewed appointment demand, access data and feedback to ensure capacity was adjusted appropriately while maintaining safe service delivery. There were appointments available each day for people who had urgent or same‑day needs.

Leaders and senior staff confirmed how reception teams worked flexibly and compassionately to accommodate patient preferences, particularly for people with transport difficulties, caring responsibilities or vulnerability. Where a patient’s preferred site was fully booked, staff explored alternative options and minimised delays wherever possible. This promoted a responsive approach to meet people’s needs effectively.

The service supported people who lived in care homes. When a person who lived in a care home needed to be seen urgently then a clinician would visit the home to assess their needs and provide care and treatment. The service also carried out regular visits to care homes to provide care and treatment to people who lived in them. This ensured people were able to access care and treatment in line with their needs.

The service performed better than the national average in the 2025 National GP Patient Survey, indicating that people were able to access care in a way that suited their needs, including by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 88% of respondents described their overall experience of the service as good, compared to a national average of 75%.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, the service made changes to improve access. This included introducing additional clinic times, such as clinics on Saturdays. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted at the entrance to improve accessibility.

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. The service took steps to identify and support people from vulnerable groups, which included people without fixed addresses, people with learning disabilities and those people with a mental health condition. The service maintained appropriate registers to ensure these people were recognised and offered tailored support. For example, named clinician, flexible appointments arrangements and personalised care agreements. Staff told us these adjustments helped people feel supported and reduced missed appointments and repeated attendance.

The service acted as a coordination point for vulnerable people, supporting continuity of care by receiving, tracking, and following up correspondence from other services, such as the local hospital. This reduced the risk of information being lost between providers and helped people navigate health and social care systems.

Mental health support within the GP surgery demonstrated a clear and effective approach to reducing inequalities in access and outcomes. A qualified mental health worker was embedded within the service, providing early, accessible talking therapies and acting as a vital link between GPs, primary care, and secondary mental health services. This enabled people to receive short‑term therapeutic support in a familiar setting, which was often preferred to immediate referral to specialist services.

The mental health worker also supported people to access appropriate services, including talking therapies and specialist care, while maintaining continuity through active follow‑up of referrals. This helped reduce the risk of people disengaging or becoming lost in the system. Support was provided across all age groups and took a holistic approach, considering mental health needs alongside medication and lifestyle factors.

As a result, people experienced improved access, continuity of care and overall satisfaction, particularly those who may face barriers to accessing support. This contributed to reduced inequalities and better outcomes for vulnerable groups.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Systems were in place to gather and review feedback from all people, including those who did not speak English or did not have access to the internet. This inclusive approach was reflected in the positive feedback received from people.

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.