The Phoenix 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

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 71 (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 did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were systems in place to act on information about access including patient feedback, complaints and performance data.

The service performed better than national averages in some of the appointments related results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS). For example, 57% of respondents to the survey responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone, compared to a national average of 53%. However, we also noted that only 32% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using its website, compared to a national average of 51%. The lead GP told us this feedback required further analysis but may be reflecting a preference for making contact in person or by phone.

Since the inspection, GPPS have published new results in July 2026. The new data suggests 49% patient satisfaction on phone access (compared to a 57% national average) and an improved 37% patient satisfaction on website access (compared to a 58% national average).

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance 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.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. For example, following patient feedback, a recent audit had reviewed the quality of clinical pharmacists’ medications reviews. Staff spoke positively about how the audit had improved the quality of reviews and therefore increased patient understanding.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) Chair told us that the group had discussed several ways of accessing the practice and also fed back that the practice reserved appointments for older people who were unable to access online appointments. Regular discussions also took place to ensure that improved accessibility was patient centred.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the positive feedback shared from people who used the service.
 
 

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.