Warmdene 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.

People we spoke to praised the access to the service. During our visit, we spoke with 4 people, and access was brought up as a positive theme. For example, one person told us they were able to obtain a face-to-face appointment within 2 hours of calling with a concern.

The National GP Patient Survey (2026) found the percentage of respondents who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 84.6%. This exceeded the national average of 72.6%.

The National GP Patient Survey (2026) also found the percentage of respondents who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 76.8%. This exceeded the national average of 56.9%

People could access the service to suit their needs. For example, online, in person and by telephone. At the time of our onsite visit, the next face to face appointment was available the same day for an emergency, the 14 August for a telephone appointment and the 26 August for a routine GP appointment.

The service reserved up to 6 telephone slots for each GP for those identified as frail or palliative and this .

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from people, the service had identified changes to improve access to the service. Leaders trialled some online access models and provided e-consultations which were actioned during protected telephone slots. However, they told us they found that by focusing on seeing patients face to face it improved access and staff morale had also improved. GP’s completed shared clinics twice a day and felt the approach was more effective than clinic aligned to single GPs. Leaders also felt this released GPs to be able to conduct home visits.

Receptionists told us they tried where suitable to signpost to alternative services for community pharmacy services, extended hours or NHS 111. Extended hours were offered through the GP federation which took place on weekday evenings and weekends. This was a combination of telephone and face to face appointments. The extended hours hub was in the same building as the service.

Treatment rooms were available on an accessible floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance. Consultation rooms were lift accessible.

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 experience to address local health inequalities. Staff followed processes for ethnicity coding and monitored ethnicity demographics.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted support as required. For example, the service completed a disability access risk assessment which found that the service would benefit from more evacuation wheelchairs in the event of an emergency.

The service made adjustments for people with anxiety disorders. For example, allowing service animals to accompany them to appointments. The service decorated the walls of the practice with community art from the local school next door which promoted inclusivity.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and travellers. The service had travellers registered and had setup a Post Office (PO) box that could be used for correspondence.

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.

The service offered interpreter services and double length appointments for people who were assessed to need assistance with communication.

Nurses led and completed reviews for learning disability, dementia, and mental health. These were completed annually and support was offered and reassessed during these reviews.

The service provided support services to a care home service run by the primary care network which covered 2 nursing homes and 1 residential home. Ward rounds were completed by the team once per week and handovers were given to a nominated GP.

The service estates were inclusive and welcoming. However, we noted that the service did not have a hearing loop to support those hard of hearing. Following our assessment, leaders purchased and installed a new hearing loop.

We also noted that despite training being mostly up to date there was a low completion rate for learning disability and autism training. Leaders told us they had encountered some access difficulties with this training and shared their plan for how they were working to improve this.

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.