Plumstead Health Centre PMS

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 inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this inspection, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 68 (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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

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

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community.

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

Information was available in a range of 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 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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. However, learning from complaints was not always shared with staff and used to drive improvement.

The service did not always make sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

National GP Patient Survey data collected between January and March 2025 showed lower than average patient satisfaction when respondents were asked questions regarding access. 19.1% of patients responded positively when asked about their experience of contact the GP practice by telephone (national average 52.9%) and 43.6% of patients responded positively when asked about their overall experience of contacting the GP practice (national average 69.9%). Patients who shared feedback directly with CQC expressed difficulty in accessing appointments.

The practice had an improvement plan in place to address the concerns raised. This included the recruitment of 3 additional GPs and the introduction of a separate telephone room. Staff allocated to this room answered telephone calls only, rather than the previous set up of answering telephones whilst seated at the reception desk. This meant that staff could focus on this task, and different staff were allocated to respond to patients arriving at the reception desk to check in for appointments or ask questions.

Whilst practice staff reported these changes had made improvements to the way patients could access care, the National GP Patient Survey had not yet been repeated. Therefore, we were unable to determine whether these changes resulted in an improvement in patient satisfaction with access.

There was a hearing loop in reception to support patients with hearing loss.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. 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 patients 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 patients using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

Patients 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.

Our records review showed patients were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.