Crosslands 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 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.

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 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 practice demonstrated a strong commitment to continuity and quality of care. Patients were able to request their preferred clinician through the online system. Where patients chose to wait, they were placed on a waiting list for the next available appointment with that clinician.

Standard consultation times of 15 minutes enabled meaningful patient engagement and supported holistic assessments. Care plans reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Results from the 2026 National GP Patient Survey demonstrated that 95% of respondents felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment which was higher than the local average of 91% and the national average of 92%.

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. Care was coordinated across services through strong multidisciplinary working and shared systems. For housebound patients, a dedicated paramedic home visiting service provided regular reviews and continuity for those unable to attend the practice.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. Strong relationships with community groups, stakeholders and neighbouring practices enabled the sharing of best practice and contributed to improved outcomes across the wider borough.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Language barriers were addressed through a combination of professional interpreting services and staff with in-house language skills, enabling patients to communicate directly in their preferred language.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available and there were information leaflets available in multiple languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The practice 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. The 2026 National GP Patient Survey found that 93% of patients had stated the healthcare professional they last encountered was good at listening to them during their last appointment, this was higher than the local average of 86% and the national average of 87%.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. The practice demonstrated a multi-layered approach to listening to people, acting on feedback and communicating changes back to patients.This was achieved through structured complaints management, systematic use of survey data, active patient participation and transparent public feedback mechanisms. They maintained a visible 'You Said, We Did' area in the waiting room, providing real-time evidence of changes implemented in response to patient feedback and closing the feedback loop transparently.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment when they needed it. A priority patient scheme ensured daily same-day appointment capacity for vulnerable groups, including those with complex or urgent needs. Patients were identified proactively through clinical systems, ensuring timely access and reducing the risk of unmet need. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp had been fitted to the entrance.

The service carried out ongoing assessment of its population using data on demographics, demand and patient feedback to understand the needs of its diverse and growing community. It used this information to design how services were delivered, including offering multiple ways for patients to access care, such as online, by phone or in person, so people could choose the option that suited them best. Access was prioritised for vulnerable patients, and systems were in place to support continuity with preferred clinicians with waiting lists available for each clinician so patients could see where possible the next appointment would be with their preferred clinician.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, the practice introduced a virtual receptionist EMMA, following a review of patient access, telephony demand, and feedback. This system simplified access routes, reduced reliance on early‑morning telephone contact, and strengthened continuity of care, while maintaining clinical safety during pressurised times. Patients also had the option to choose from their preferred language as there were 21 language options to choose from with the virtual receptionist. Since implementation, the service achieved significant improvements with call waiting and answering performance improved, with longest waiting times around 2 minutes.

Access performance was then continually monitored and refined through a structured governance framework. The service reviewed real‑time telephony, digital access, and appointment data, supported by workforce demand‑modelling to proactively align capacity with need. Clinical safety was maintained through daily duty GP oversight. Benchmarking through primary care networks (PCN) and system forums, alongside ongoing staff engagement and training, ensured the access model remained safe, responsive, and embedded across the service. Leaders were asked to share their approach with the wider PCN. Patient feedback from surveys and patient participation group discussions directly informed further improvements and leaders informed us they sent regular feedback to the company for changes and improvements.

In the NHS National GP Patient Survey results 2026 the service performed significantly better than local and national averages in several areas including access, for example 84%of respondents had a good overall experience of contacting the service, compared to 73% locally and 73% nationally. Additionally, 66%of respondents described their experience of contacting the service by phone as easy, compared to 62% locally and 57% nationally.The practice received acknowledgement from the primary care network and to share strategies with other practices for their achievement.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. 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 supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had been given the opportunity to express their wishes regarding DNACPR and were supported to plan their future care while they still had the capacity to do so. People’s decisions and what mattered to them had been reflected in personalised care plans, which had been shared with others when necessary. The patients we spoke to during the on-site assessment told us they had felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment.