Toddington 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 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 71 (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.

The service is open from 8am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday. When the service is closed, patients are directed to the NHS 111 service for support, treatment and advice. The service also offers extended access and extended hours services. People could access the service by telephone, online or in-person.

The service operates from a purpose-built property, with all treatment rooms available on the ground floor. There were accessible toilets and designated baby changing facilities. Automatic doors had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service. There were designated disabled parking spaces in the car park.

Leaders had a good understanding of the local population and told us they reviewed appointment utilisation data to ensure the service met people’s needs. During our site visit, we reviewed appointment availability and found that there were urgent appointments available for on-the-day. Routine appointments for some services, including immunisations, cervical screening and diabetes reviews, were also available within 1 week.

The results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey showed that 74% of respondents had a positive experience of contacting the practice. This was in line with the national average. Forty-five percent of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, compared with the national average of 57%. Seventy percent of respondents found the practice website easy to use, compared with the national average of 58%.

Appointments could be booked in person, telephone or via the online triage. At the time of our inspection, the practice had recently implemented an artificial intelligence (AI) telephone assistant to support telephone access. Staff told us the system had helped reduce telephone waiting times and improve call management. However, they also identified some early challenges, including the system not always recognising some names and accents. Feedback from people using the service was mixed. Some people expressed concerns that the system was less personal and could be frustrating to use. As the system had only recently been introduced, it was too early to fully assess its impact on people's experience of accessing care.

Feedback from people using the service highlighted mixed experiences of access arrangements. While some people described the practice’s online consultation system and AI telephone assistant as difficult to use and preferred more traditional methods of accessing appointments, others praised the timely responses they received following submission of an online request form.

Staff and leaders 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 provided care to a mixed rural and semi-rural population with a higher proportion of older people. Leaders understood the health needs of their population and sought to provide equitable care. Staff and leaders recognised the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. For example, appointment arrangements could be adapted to meet individual needs, including providing longer appointments where appropriate. Staff used alerts within patient records to identify people with accessibility requirements. The service also used interpretation and translation services to support people with communication needs. There was a hearing loop available.

The service offered a range of appointment types including face-to-face appointments, telephone consultations and home visits to meet people’s individual needs. There was also a dedicated wellness area which offered equipment for self-monitoring, including a blood pressure monitor, weighing scales, height measurement equipment and information about local health, wellbeing and support services.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders worked with local organisations and care providers to support people’s health and wellbeing and reduce health inequalities. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register with the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances.

Feedback from people using the service was generally positive. However, some people felt that patients who were less confident using digital systems or advocating for themselves were at risk of being overlooked and may require additional support to access care and treatment. People also told us that continuity of care could be improved, particularly for ongoing health issues where multiple clinicians were involved and felt this affected communication and their overall experience of care. Some people felt that additional communication and support needs, including those relating to autism and neurodiversity, were not always fully understood or consistently met.

Whilst the practice had measures in place to support people with different needs, feedback suggested these arrangements were not always effective in ensuring equitable experiences for all groups of patients.

The service gathered feedback through a range of channels, including NHS Friends and Family Test responses, online reviews, digital feedback and patient comments, to understand people’s experiences and identify opportunities for improvement. Whilst the practice had arrangements in place for people to raise concerns and complaints, feedback from some patients suggested awareness of these processes could also be improved.

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.