Portsdown Group Practice Also known as Cosham Park House

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. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

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. The service had care navigation protocols in place to ensure people were directed to the right professional at the right time. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. Regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held with relevant professionals and services to discuss and plan person-centred care and treatment so people’s needs could be met holistically. Feedback from people who responded directly to CQC said they were well-supported to understand their condition and felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment and in planning for their future needs.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Due to the higher prevalence of deprivation in the local the area, the service supported people with protected characteristics who may be at risk of a poorer care experience, for example, prioritising people who are frail or housebound. The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. For example, the service had tailored its provision to meet the diverse needs of its community, by building relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of cervical screening. The service held weekly meetings to review appointment capacity to ensure staff could meet the needs and people’s requests for appointments. Rotas for the service were created 6 weeks in advance, and it was evident the service made sure the appropriate staff were always on duty and services were accessible for people. The service was also awarded the Veterans Gold ERS Award . This is the highest national award given for employers who provide outstanding support to the armed forces community, including veterans, reservists, and their families, by going above and beyond in their support for the Armed Forces Covenant. Employers are publicly thanked and honoured for championing the community through their policies and practices, and the Gold Award is a prestigious badge of honour that signals this exceptional commitment. The service is a recognised armed forces veteran friendly practice.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard and their policy specifically focused on all people accessing the service and how best they would be supported. For example, the service provided links to health resources in multiple languages on their website. Due to demand people were informed and supported how to access their care records and a member of staff specifically worked on this to promote a timely response. The service had access to translation services and staff were able to demonstrate how to support people who required additional communication needs. There was also a hearing loop available at each of the service’s sites. People could also access easy read leaflets via the website for example procedure specific consent forms and verbal explanations in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

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. We reviewed a sample of complaints, and noted these were investigated and responded to appropriately in line with service policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of feedback received by people. Staff told us they knew how to deal with complaints as per the service’s policy and gave examples where people were supported to make a complaint and how this was addressed. The service held a complaints log, and it detailed the process from the point of receiving a complaint to its resolution. Compliments were also recorded, and these were shared with staff weekly. The national GP Patient Survey from 2025 indicated 80% of respondents felt involved in their decisions about their care and treatment.

The service made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data from 2025 and from feedback from members of the community, the service had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, reception staff had proactively flagged barriers in care, such as, health literacy and had created internal prompts for staff to know how to direct and support people during these times. There were 5 staff involved with recalling and monitoring learning disability review uptake. The service had also undertaken a quality improvement project for people who were deaf or hard of hearing. This project reviewed how people accessed the service and identified instructing people to call the service to book a telephone review was not appropriate for deaf people. As a result, the service introduced a code to be recorded on people’s clinical care records to alert staff of people to ensure staff were able to ensure people’s communication needs were identified and supported. People were offered the chance to be communicated via email to prompt them about updates regarding access to services without the need for people to contact the service directly. Treatment and clinical rooms were located on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to support accessibility to the premises. People diagnosed with learning disability and autism were supported by staff in the service and there was a direct telephone line for people to contact staff for support and guidance.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Leaders worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For examplem the service had designed a bespoke Covid vaccination campaign for low uptake postcodes offering vaccinations to these people in the community. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the service as well as to CQC, was positive. Themes from the feedback received highlighted staff treated people equally and without discrimination. This was also observed during the onsite visit. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The service had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People were given support to plan for important life changes, so they could 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. This information was shared with other services when necessary. The service held a palliative care award for holding drop in events for carers, including health checks. Staff were trained and supported to give clear support for families wishes and preferences for emergency care and treatment escalation planning. The service had also been awarded the Marie Curie service team of the year award in 2023, which is part of the Daffodil standards awards for recognising the best practices in palliative and end of life care. This award was recognised for providing excellent end of life care.