The Woodberry Practice Also known as Drs J.E.Selwood, A. Patel, K.S. Bluston & C Lopez Peig

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.

The service performed better than the national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 70.3% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%. In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. This included a new triage system which included co-locating the duty doctor with the administration team to support effective care navigation. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and the practice had been altered in recent years to ensure ease of access to the service.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service to the provider through the Friends and Family Test and the GP patient survey was generally positive. The practice reviewed these results on a monthly basis within practice meetings and looked at ways to improve service following any negative comments. Feedback was reviewed on a regular basis with action taken on poor feedback. For example, some patients reported that there were long waits to see the nurse and that those appointments could run behind schedule. The practice reviewed their systems and changed the appointment schedule to allow more catch up slots throughout the sessions. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) worked with patients to gather insight into their experience for the practice to improve. The group stated that staff at the practice were open to their comments and they were discussed within meetings. For example, the feedback provided by the PPG was part of the response leading to the change in the booking system to an online consultation system. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experiences 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 experiences 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.

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.