Gudge Heath Lane 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

Responsive - We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs through good organisation and delivery.

At our last inspection, this key question was rated Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. Leaders reviewed the needs of its local population and engaged with the local integrated care board (ICB) to secure improvements to services where these were identified. For example, as a result of access to services feedback and nationally recognised pressures in primary care to deliver timely care, the service had implemented an artificial intelligence triage tool in June 2025. This supported clinical pathways for people and accessing care whilst reducing initial first contact telephone demand. The service had an effective system in place for handling complaints, concerns and monitored and responded to feedback in an open and transparent way.

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.

People could share their experience of the service via Friends and Family Test (FFT) survey and the National GP-Patient Survey (GPPS). We reviewed feedback via the service’s most recent FFT survey and found positive results had been received in relation to recommending the service to a friend of family member. However, the GPPS showed negative feedback relating to a lack of co-ordinated person-centred care and people’s involvement with care planning against local and national average data. As a result, the service had worked with the local primary care network (PCN) to deliver care as part of the extended access arrangements and offer additional healthcare initiatives to support people’s care. This included introducing the housebound and care home service to improve the timeliness of care provided to those who are unable to visit the service.

We received feedback from local partners including local care homes, which identified positive themes of how their service users were supported and offered personable care.

Staff demonstrated awareness of how the service considered people’s preferences and how these were taken into consideration when co-ordinating care. Where appropriate, staff included carers and dependants and processes were in place to share decision-making about their treatment.

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. We identified the service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its service users. The service had tailored its provision to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, through additional services with the local primary care network (PCN). Multidisciplinary meetings were held regularly for people with complex needs such as with community district nursing and community mental health services. The service had built relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of screening programmes which was co-ordinated through the service’s social prescriber. For example, people were signposted to community-based initiatives such as dementia drop-in community clinics, sexual health clinics, sleep-based therapies and mental health self-referrals.

The service ensured longer appointments were available for those with additional needs. Action was taken to remove barriers when people found it hard to use services. For example, the service was recognised as a military veterans accredited service in which people were invited to annual reviews. Veterans were also offered support services and signposted to social meeting groups in the local Fareham area.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had met the Accessible Information Standards. Reasonable adjustments were to support people with their communication needs, including the use of interpreters during consultations. Leaflets were available in the reception area and posters were displayed to provide people with information on the service and the provision available to them. People were also provided with information on how to access their medical records. A private room was available if people were distressed or wanted to discuss sensitive issues. There were arrangements to ensure confidentiality at the reception desk and during telephone calls. We assessed the service’s subject access request processes and found there were systems in place to manage and provide people’s information and data in timeframes in accordance with service policy.

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.

Information was displayed on the service’s website and within the service’s premises to support people to share feedback and raise any concerns or complaints.

Staff encouraged people to share their experiences of the service and supported them to raise concerns. Feedback and complaints were investigated and resolved in line with service policy. Staff were able to provide examples of learning and how the service had improved from people’s experiences, such as ensuring people had the ‘Right to Choose’ for their referral options for secondary care NHS providers. The NHS Right to Choose is a legal right for registered NHS patients in England to choose their provider for specialist care, such as a neurodevelopmental assessment after GP referral.

During our assessment, we reviewed a sample of complaints, and these were investigated and responded to appropriately in line with service policy. Where appropriate, people were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service’s National GPPS results from 2024 indicated people found it difficult to contact the service via telephone and online, as well as speaking with their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to. Consequently, the service scored lower than local and national averages.

However, leaders demonstrated they were aware of the challenges to access and had acted to improve this. For example, the service implemented an artificial intelligence triage tool in June 2025. The senior clinicians carried out a review of pathways and outcomes to ensure clinical decisions had been risk assessed based on people’s reported symptoms. The service carried out an audit in July 2025 to assess and review triage outcomes to identify any initial improvements. The audit resulted in the need to change a triage decision outcome to more appropriately trained clinical staff members. There were safety-netting mechanisms to ensure the on-the-day duty GP reviewed and contacted people whose online triage request deemed their clinical need as urgent, when daily appointments were fully booked. The service also had an electronic triage request system which was used and monitored daily for people’s requests that could not be triaged due to the complexity of the request or if no appointments were available and offered.

We saw evidence of audits completed in relation to access performance, such as appointment capacity and demand data, appointment waiting times and ‘Did Not Attend’ (DNA) rates per GP to assess performance. This also helped provide oversight to rota management and staffing arrangements to meet access demand. The service had also reviewed audits of telephone access data which included the total number of inbound calls daily; queue waiting times and call abandonments. The service told us of the actions that had been taken to improve access to services such as additional call handlers during busy periods and adjusting communication to people on the telephone queue system to advise them of changes in service provision.

Appointments were available face to face, telephone, or as a home visit. People could book appointments by telephone, online, walking-in and could also submit medical or admin requests via the service website. The service provided extended access arrangements outside of normal working hours delivered by a GP and a nurse practitioner on Saturday mornings and weekday evenings through the local primary care network (PCN). The service also utilised PCN resources to provide a co-ordinated package of care, such as mental health practitioners, first contact physiotherapists and pharmacy technicians.

Peoples’ accessibility and communication needs were recorded in their clinical records. Staff were trained in the care navigation process to ensure people were directed to the most appropriate part of the service. Staff had access to the future care planning templates on the service’s clinical records system which incorporated checks for people’s wishes, mental capacity and any treatment escalation planning.

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.

Staff told us they considered how they tailored care, support and treatment to individual needs. Staff told us if families had experienced a bereavement, the service contacted them to offer an appointment to discuss any further needs. Families were signposted to relevant support groups, such as the service’s mental health support workers and social prescribers.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders took proactive steps to identify and address barriers to improving people's experiences. They worked with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to address 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. Staff told us they had completed relevant awareness training in supporting people with learning disabilities, autism and dementia.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, 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 those who faced digital exclusion. The service held a register of people who were carers and offered annual health checks. We saw examples of local care initiatives to help support carers in the community.

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.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision-making and had access to policies to support them. 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. People who were recorded on the service’s palliative care register were reviewed in monthly multi-disciplinary meetings. The service had developed co-ordinated work with the local PCN home visiting service which focused on accessibility for vulnerable people and people with frailty.