Burnley Group 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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The practice provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the practice took it seriously and acted on it. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice 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. However, the actions taken in response to patient complaints and feedback was not always clear and improvements based on such feedback was not always demonstrated.

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 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. 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. However, we identified that documentation and record keeping around do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR), best interests decisions and mental capacity assessments could better evidence conversations and assessments to show they had taken place.

The practice received below average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 76% of respondents stated the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, compared to 87% nationally and 88% locally. 73% of respondents found the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, compared to 83% nationally and 86% locally.

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.

Results of the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 9% of patients got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, compared to 40% nationally and locally, indicating the practice was not able to provide the people who used the service the consistency they desired.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. They led and participated in multi-disciplinary teams with other professionals to meet the needs of their patients. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. People who had difficulty with reading, writing or using digital services were supported with accessible information. The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use, and this information could be shown in different languages. 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. However, it was not always clear how they involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were responded to but it was not always evident how the complaint was investigated, and what actions were taken as a response. Actions from complaints were not always clearly recorded as being completed and closed. Staff were not always clear on the details of complaints and the outcomes and so learning was not clearly evident.

The practice did not always complete an annual review of complaints. They had one planned for 2026, but none had occurred in 2025.

The practice had a Patient Participation Group (PPG), which was made up of patients, carers and GP practice staff, which met regularly to discuss and support the running of their GP practice. PPGs look at the services the practice offers, patient experience and how improvements can be made for the benefit of patients and the practice.

The practice regularly undertook friends and family test (FFT) patient surveys to gain feedback on their performance. We saw that these were analysed and themes gathered and shared with staff. However, the practice had not completed analysis or taken any action based on the NHS GP patient survey, to understand the experience reported by their patients, which was less positive in almost every area than local and national reported figures. In terms of overall experience 51% of patients who responded to the survey described their experience of this GP practice as good, compared to 75% nationally and 78% locally.

The practice had not undertaken a staff survey to gauge staff experience, nor did they have a staff suggestion scheme or staff ideas forums, they did however state they had an ‘open door policy’ where staff could feedback or raise concerns at any time. The practice reported they would be considering ideas for staff engagement in the coming year.

The practice was good at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service received below average scores in the National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to access. The percentage of respondents were positive about their experience of contacting the practice was 42%, compared to 70% nationally and 73% locally and 43% of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment compared to 67% nationally and 68% locally. 45% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, compared to 49% nationally and 53% locally, and 27% found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, compared to 53% nationally and 57% locally.

However, since the last survey, the practice had implemented a new way for patients to contact the practice and access appointments. The process was effective at ensuring that urgent and on-the-day, next day and face-to-face appointments were more appropriately given to those who required them and that more routine, less urgent appointments and telephone consultations, could be better utilised by those who were safely able to be allocated such appointments. All requests were triaged by a GP to ensure patients were safely directed to the most appropriate resource. We saw that appointments were embargoed for those in greatest need and signposted safely where appropriate.

We saw evidence that this new appointment triage process had demonstrably reduced the call volume and better utilised appropriate appointments. Feedback from patients and staff was positive, and it was anticipated that this would translate into significantly improved future surveys when they next came around.

The practice had accessible sites and designated treatment rooms for those with mobility problems and who needed wheelchair access.

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 practice and 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, 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 practice 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.

The results from the friends and family test (FFT) were mostly positive, however, the results of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 79% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally and 91% locally, and 51% described their overall experience of the practice as good, compared to 75% nationally and 78% locally.

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.

Our records review showed that although people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, this was not always documented well. However, this information was shared with other services when necessary. During the inspection, the practice undertook a review of such cases to make sure processes and documentation was correct. They stated they would establish more structured quality assurance audits around this area as part of the planned quality improvement strategy going forward.