Dr A M Cole & Partners, Lockswood 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

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 75 (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 made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Data from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed access to services was below both local and national averages; however, the leaders were able to demonstrate how they regularly reviewed and analysed feedback and survey data to improve the quality of care. For example, the service had an ongoing action plan focussing on each individual result and how they can improve them.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, leaders had made changes to improve accessibility for people who worked during core hours by providing appointments outside those hours, including early mornings. All treatment rooms were on the ground floor, and an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access into the service.

Leaders carried out audits of missed appointments on a quarterly basis to monitor attendance and identify opportunities for improvement. We saw evidence from an audit which showed a 97% attendance rate for the month reviewed. The audit also demonstrated a reduction in missed appointments (DNAs), with an average of 31 missed appointments per week over the previous 90 days, compared with 44 during the same period in 2025.

The service attributed this improvement to changes in how people accessed appointments, ensuring they were directed to the most appropriate clinician for their needs. Staff had been upskilled and empowered to effectively signpost people to the right service or clinician. The service also used telephone calls and text message reminders to follow up people who did not attend appointments.

People could contact the service in several ways including by telephone, in person or online. During our onsite visit we observed an interactive screen which mirrored the service’s website where people without internet access could submit an e-consult, with assistance from administrative staff. This meant the service had considered the needs of people who may be digitally excluded and reduced barriers to accessing care.

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. The service offered longer appointments, quiet spaces to wait, or appointments with their chosen clinician where possible. People with learning disabilities or autism were offered access to a sensory box, with clear information about it provided upon entry to the service to support them whilst waiting for and during appointments.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities.

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 feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive. The service used translation services to support people during consultations and there were leaflets in different languages available for people to understand their care and treatment.

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.