Park Medical Centre

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 Outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. The service had carried out an access improvement audit, which informed the development of an access improvement, engagement, and participation strategy. The service worked with local Integrated Care Board (ICB) and Public Health teams to align services with wider population health goals. They attended and contributed to multi-agency meetings with social care, mental health services, voluntary sector organisations, housing support, and community outreach teams. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service 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.

This service scored 79 (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. For example; the practice implemented a Virtual Ward model to support patients with complex health needs in the community to reduce the risk of avoidable hospital admissions. Patients were proactively identified through daily reviews of hospital discharge notifications, acute service alerts and community team communications. To allow for early clinical review following hospital discharge and a coordinated multidisciplinary approach when needed. Staff reported this approach improved continuity of care and enabled timely escalation should the patients’ conditions deteriorate.

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.

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 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, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.Park Medical Centre led in bi-monthly ILCT (Integrated Local Care Team) meetings providing coordination and support for multiagency services for vulnerable patients.

The service analysed health inequalities data to identify gaps in care for vulnerable groups such as people who experienced homelessness, substance misuse and multiple long-term conditions. The practice was also an armed forces veteran friendly accredited GP service.

We sought feedback from some of the care homes regarding the GP service provided by Park Medical Centre. We received positive feedback. They valued the service provided and held a professional working relationship. The regular virtualward round was supportive to the care they provided to people with very complex health and communication needs. They supported the patient’s families, provided medicines optimisation and provided clinical advice to the staff. Care home staff expressed a preference for practice staff attending in person where possible, rather than relying on the acute visiting service, as this supported continuity of care. The practice reviewed this feedback and agreed to further consider how communication could be improved.

The service worked with local Integrated Care Board (ICB) and Public Health teams to align services with wider population health goals. They attended and contributed to multi-agency meetings with social care, mental health services, voluntary sector organisations, housing support, and community outreach teams. They contributed to local initiatives such as population health management projects, health inequality audits, and social prescribing schemes.

The service 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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Information for people using the service was available on display boards within the waiting room. Health promotion leaflets were available. For example, lifestyle advice, screening programmes and NHS health checks.

The practice took account of their patient demographic in respect of booking of appointments as many had preferred to use the phone or face to face. Patients potentially digitally excluded were offered information in other formats such as letters. People with additional needs were provided with information in appropriate formats, including pictorial easy read formats.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. We randomly sampled four complaints and identified the need for more consistent inclusion of the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsmannext‑step information within some complaint responses. Where a complaint was upheld, appropriate apologies were provided.

Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

Staff we spoke with were all able to describe the complaints process, stated they were discussed in meetings following investigations and had awareness of the derived leaning following a complaint information. Not all could recall a recent event. Staff we spoke with on site and remotely had complaint process awareness.

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

The practice maintained a partnership with a local special educational needs school to help pupils understand how to access primary care services and reduce anxiety about attending healthcare settings.

The service had carried out an access improvement audit, which informed the development of an access improvement, engagement, and participation strategy. The practice outlined a clear timeline of this strategy and its implementation. A review of the appointment model (2024–2025), incorporating patient feedback and data analysis, prompted consultation with staff and the Patient Participation Group. As a result, a same‑day appointment model with limited advance slots for specific clinical needs was introduced. This model went live in March 2025 and received positive feedback from both patients and staff.

We found the service gathered patient feedback via surveys, Friends and Family Test (FFT) results, suggestion boxes and digital platforms. Feedback from these forums were reviewed regularly and assisted the formation of their service improvement plan.

The practice had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff had access to policies such as their equality and diversity policy and training.

The National GP Patient Survey results for 2025 of the 304 invites there were 97 respondents, a 32% completion rate. The results found the practice had higher than local and national patient satisfaction rates, for example:

• 91% of respondents find the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, when compared to the ICS result of, 85% and National result of, 83%.
• 81% of respondents find it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone when compared with the local ICS result of, 57% and National result of, 53%.
• 85% of respondents describe their experience of contacting their GP practice as good, when compared to the local ICS result of, 73% and National result of, 70%.
• 76% of respondents find it easy to contact this GP practice using their website when compared with the local ICS result of, 48% and National result of, 51%.
• 66% of respondents find it easy to contact this GP practice using the NHS App, when compared to the ICS result of, 50% and National result of, 49%..
• People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Staff supported people to complete their triage forms, if necessary.

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 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.

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 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.