The Ridge 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

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.

The Practice 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.

The National GP Patient Survey(2025) showed overall patient satisfaction that was broadly in line with local and national averages. For example, 88% of respondents said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared to the local and national average of 91%.

Staff received additional training to support specific population groups, including patients with learning disabilities or autism. At the time of the assessment, the practice had 343 patients on its learning disability register, 231 of whom had received a review within the past 12 months. The practice had a plan to increase this number and actively identified and engaged with these patients, their carers, and families, offering flexible approaches such as longer appointments or home visits when needed.

The practice participated in community outreach days at local community centres, including promotional work around women’s health. They completed population analysis and identified a need to improve engagement with certain cultural groups. This led to staff and management undertaking cultural awareness training to strengthen their understanding of community needs and ensure care was tailored appropriately.

Social prescribers were available and offered services such as bereavement support, drug and alcohol support, and digital‑inclusion drop‑ins.

Care delivery reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including needs related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. The practice respected individual preferences and, where possible, offered patients a choice between face‑to‑face or telephone consultations.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The practice held registers for different patient groups, including people with a learning disability and carers. Patients with no fixed abode were supported to register using the practice address. The practice met regularly with other stakeholders to support patients with complex or vulnerable needs, including participation in end‑of‑life multidisciplinary meetings and discussions with district nurses, social workers and primary care colleagues. Information such as a patient’s need for a longer appointment was recorded on the patient record home screen to support continuity.

A dedicated multidisciplinary team provided proactive and comprehensive care for people with complex and escalating needs. The team carried out holistic assessments, supported patients and carers to improve quality of life, helped prevent unnecessary hospital admissions, and signposted people to relevant statutory and non‑statutory services.

The practice took part in the Modern General Practice model to improve access and ensure patients were directed to the most appropriate care. Extended access appointments were offered at 1 of the branch sites, and weekend appointments were available at the main practice. The practice engaged with community healthcare providers and offered information on a range of support services, including carer support, drug and alcohol services, domestic violence advisers and mental health support. The provider collaborated closely with other partners, including the primary care network (PCN), to support continuity of care.

The practice made reasonable adjustments to support communication, this included the use of interpreter services, and larger print documents. The practice noted individuals’ communication needs on their patient records.

Information was displayed on noticeboards throughout the practice, and leaders advised this was beginning to be updated regularly to reflect topical issues. The practice maintained a detailed and user‑friendly website, which included news and updates, appointment guidance, online access information, and a dedicated page for the Patient Participation Group (PPG).

Adjustments were made to support patients’ communication needs; this included the use of translation and interpretation services, the availability of hearing loops, and the provision of easy‑read materials. Individual communication needs were recorded on patient records where relevant, and information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) showed that 77% of patients felt the healthcare professional was good at listening to them (national average 87%).

The practice routinely asked patients to complete NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) forms and reviewed the feedback for trends or themes. FFT data collected between January and December 2025,representing3,053 responses, showed that 2,184 patients rated the service as very good or good, giving an overall positive experience rating of 71.5% for the year.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback 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. The practice had a complaints policy and appointed complaints leads; staff we spoke with understood the complaints process and how to support patients. Information on how to complain was available on the practice website.

Between January 2025 and January 2026, the practice received 122 complaints. In the sample we reviewed, investigations had been conducted and learning had been implemented. The provider informed us that they identified common themes to drive improvement, including appointment access and difficulties getting through by phone. Although feedback submitted to the CQC via the Give feedback on care process showed that patients still found telephone access to be a barrier, the new telephony system only went live in November 2025, so there had not yet been sufficient time to assess its impact as it had not fully embedded into the practice. Leaders acknowledged that further improvement was needed and were exploring additional options to make telephone access easier for patients.

The provider actively sought patient feedback from multiple sources, including FFT, internal surveys, compliments and concerns, and results from the National GP Patient Survey.

The practice’s core opening hours were 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and extended access was offered at the main site until 9.30pm. Patients were able to book or request services in person, via telephone, text, online forms or through NHS‑approved digital platforms. Appointments included urgent/on‑the‑day, routine and home visits. Patients were offered a choice of face‑to‑face or telephone consultations at any of the 4 locations.

A daily duty doctor system was used, supported by a triage team of four staff, including two GPs. Staff had been trained in care navigation and were supported by clear guidance, escalation protocols and safety‑netting to direct patients safely, including to local pharmacies, mental health services and social prescribers. Support was available for vulnerable or digitally excluded patients, and reasonable adjustments were made for disabled patients in line with the practice’s accessibility policy.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey(2025) showed that 10% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, compared with local and national averages of 51% and 53%. Access via the website was reported as easy by 28%, and via the NHS App by 30%, which were all lower than local averages. The practice’s own survey data also highlighted challenges with telephone access.

The practice had spent time analysing what steps could improve access and installed a new telephony system within the last six months. This system included an AI‑enabled call‑handling process and had already reduced average waiting times to 6 minutes and 38 seconds across sites. Staff monitored real‑time call queues and adjusted staffing at peak times, and the provider monitored key access indicators, including call‑answering times and online triage processing.

As part of the assessment, we asked the practice to invite patients to complete CQC Give Feedback on Care forms. We received multiple submissions reporting continued difficulty accessing the practice by phone. Although the new telephony system went live in November 2025, there had not yet been sufficient time for it to fully embed, and its impact could not yet be demonstrated. Leaders acknowledged that further improvements were needed and were exploring additional ways to make telephone access easier for patients.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey(2025)showed that 85% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment, which was slightly lower than the local and national averages of 90%. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from all patient groups, including those without internet access, and leaders proactively sought to address barriers to people’s experiences by working with local organisations, including the primary care network, to reduce health inequalities and improve outcomes.

The practice demonstrated an inclusive approach to care. Adjustments were made to support equitable experiences, such as offering longer appointments, interpretation services and accessible communication materials. Individual communication needs were recorded on patient records. Staff had completed training to support people with a learning disability and autistic people, delivered in line with updated guidance. Processes were in place to support vulnerable individuals, including those who were homeless, to register with the practice and access care. The provider recognised the needs of people with long‑term conditions and those at risk of developing them. NHS Health Checks were offered, and vulnerable patients, including those with a learning disability, received regular reviews. Data showed that 67.3% of the 343 patients on the learning disability register had received a health review in the previous 12 months. The practice had an improvement plan in place that involved using an Advanced Nurse practitioner to increase the number of learning disability reviews carried out. The practice was accredited as a Veteran Friendly Practice.

The practice worked collaboratively with local services to improve outcomes and provided extended hours appointments and additional support to residents of a local care home. Systems and processes were in place to identify patients requiring additional support, including alerts on patient records to highlight communication or accessibility needs. Staff undertook cultural awareness training relevant to local population groups to help them provide more informed and appropriate care.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to support equitable care, including offering longer appointments, providing interpreters, and ensuring a private area was available for confidential discussions with reception staff when requested. The practice worked both independently and with partners to meet the needs of vulnerable and complex patients, including supporting residents across 3 care homes through regular visits, ad hoc callouts, and structured meetings with care home managers.

Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future care, including at the end of life. Staff understood the requirements of relevant legislation when considering consent and supporting patients with decisions about their future care needs.

Care‑planning processes, including palliative care planning, were in place and were effectively managed. The practice collaborated with patients and external stakeholders to ensure care was coordinated and appropriate. The provider maintained a palliative care register, and patients on the register were reviewed regularly alongside other health and care partners. Internally, staff discussed patients at daily huddles and clinical meetings.

Staff described how they supported patients, carers, and care providers to understand future care options. ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms were completed in line with guidance, and this information was shared with other services when needed.