Mendlesham Medical Group

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.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers.

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.

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 was exceptional at ensuring people could access care, support, and treatment when required.

In response to the demographic profile of the practice population and its person‑centred ethos, leaders and staff actively promoted telephone and in person access, as well as online access, to ensure access was equitable and responsive to individual needs. Due to the rural location of the service, staff signposted people to transport options to assist with access to the service and to hospital appointments. The Patient Participation Group were working to further improve local transport options.

Service leaders explained that all appointment requests were clinically triaged by a GP to ensure people with the highest clinical need were prioritised appropriately. The service had acted on feedback from people by introducing a Saturday morning remote clinic for those requiring complex medication reviews. Early appointments were also available on 2 weekdays, with start times of 7:00am on 1 day and 7:30am on another, in line with their contract.

The service had maintained high levels of satisfaction in relation to access since the previous assessment in 2021. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed the service performed significantly above national averages for access indicators. For example, 88.3% of respondents reported it was easy to contact the service by phone, compared with a national average of 52.9%. Additionally, 86.2% of respondents rated their overall experience of contacting the GP practice positively, compared with a national average of 69.6%. This demonstrated that people were able to access the service when needed and in a manner that met their preferences.

We reviewed compliments received by the service, alongside feedback from people who used the service and information from Healthwatch Suffolk. Feedback consistently reflected high levels of satisfaction with the ease and speed of access, as well as the range of options available for requesting appointments, including in person, by telephone, and online. Neither the service nor CQC had received any complaints regarding access in the previous 12 months.

Service leaders routinely monitored and reviewed appointment data to ensure efficient use of available appointments and to support continuous improvement. In the previous 12 months, they had strengthened capacity by recruiting 2 part‑time salaried GPs. The premises were accessible, with an automatic entrance door, a call bell available for those requiring assistance and treatment rooms located on the ground floor. Interpreter services were available for those people whose first language was not English, and for people with a hearing impairment. A hearing loop was also available.

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.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experiences. For example, they provided an on-site blood-taking service which enabled people to have their blood tests carried out at the service rather than having to travel elsewhere.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people, Travellers, asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants.

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. For example, the layout of chairs in the waiting room was changed so a quieter waiting area was available for people who preferred this, and so people could see when a clinician was calling them for their appointment.

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.