The Eaglescliffe Medical 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

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 good. At this assessment, the rating has remained as good.

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.

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 practice had support for veterans available. There was a GP with military experience who acted as a point of contact for any veteran who experienced difficulty. The practice website had a specific section for veterans, which signposted patients to local services available to them.

We saw evidence that practice leaders had engaged with hard to reach groups and encouraged a diverse PPG. Practice leaders had requested a review by NHS Quality Checkers, with the aim of identifying improvements that could be made to the practice that would specifically benefit patients with a learning disability. This check had included a questionnaire for people with a learning disability, in which 100% had felt they were treated well by staff at the practice and understood the information that had been given to them. Practice leaders actioned several of the recommendations of the report, including adopting more easy read patient information on the practice website, and arranging specific training for all practice staff.

The service had an exceptional understanding of 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 community services, including District Nursing teams. The practice also collaborated within their Primary Care Network (PCN) to support integrated service delivery and had developed an online resource hub which provided health and wellbeing resources to patients. Practice leaders had shared knowledge via presentations to other practices across the region, relating to connecting with patients in a digital age. Practice leaders had connected with other local practices to discuss the care of people with ADHD after identifying challenges in referral pathways.

Leaders at the practice were involved in research around the use of social media in public health education and referral pathways. The practice produced social media videos to promote referrals to the NHS Type 2 Diabetes service. From this there was a large increase in the number of patients who used this service. The leaders were scheduled to present this research and promotion at a national conference.

People’s care and treatment is delivered in a way that exceeds their assessed needs from services that are co-ordinated and responsive. CQC received positive feedback from over 100 people. Key themes of this feedback included people’s positive experience of the care they received, and positive experience of referral processes to other services. People also told us they were able to see a doctor of their choice to support continuity of their care.

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.

The practice website included a news page, in which any updates to services were communicated, such as changes to regional sexual health services. We saw evidence of the work that had been done by leaders on improving the practice website and monitoring the impact of these changes. Practice leadership used a web-based package to monitor and analyse website traffic. We saw that this allowed them to make improvements to the website based on data, to make the website easier to navigate and provide information on popular subjects. Practice leaders had implemented the recommendations from experts by experience to the practice website, including the addition of more easy read information.

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

We saw evidence that the practice collected and analysed feedback from patients and members of staff. Leaders had analysed and discussed the National GP Patient Survey results prior to our assessment being announced. This discussion included a documented action plan, which had been actioned. Leaders used social media to communicate improvements made to the practice as a result of feedback, such as changes to the phone messages played when a patient is on hold. The practice had information on their website about how to join their PPG. The PPG was reinstated in February 2024 after it ceased during the COVID-19 pandemic. The PPG typically met quarterly. We saw that leaders sought feedback from PPG members after each meeting to capture what went well and what members would like to see at future meetings. We saw evidence that leaders had made attempts to diversify the PPG by encouraging patients with a learning disability to join.

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

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The National GP Patient Survey 2025 data showed that 68% of respondents found it easy to contact the GP Practice by phone and 72% found it easy to contact the GP Practice using the NHS app. Both results were higher than the national averages of 53% and 49% respectively.

Enhanced access appointments run by the local GP Federation were available at the surgery. We saw evidence of leaders gathering feedback from patients that had a specific focus on access, including questions about how appointments were booked, whether appointments were made with a preferred healthcare professional, and peoples understanding of the functionality of the NHS app. Leaders had conducted a review of the practices access model as part of a quality improvement report, which included recommendations for ongoing monitoring and further evaluation as changes were made.

Representatives from the PPG told us that noticeable improvements had been made to access, and they felt that it was easy to access the practice. Feedback collected by NHS Quality Checkers from people with learning disability showed that all patients who returned questionnaires felt it was easy to access an appointment.

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. 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. Appointment adjustments were also made where needed, such as longer consultations or scheduled appointments at the end of a day to better suit individual needs.

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.