Chelsfield 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this inspection, 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.

The service made sure patients 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 patients’ needs.

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 was in the process of working with the local primary care network (PCN) to identify inequalities in uptake of cervical, bowel and breast cancer screening of people with a learning disability or serious mental health illness compared to people without a learning disability or serious mental health illness. Staff involved in this work identified areas that could be improved, including education of patients and their carers on the importance of cancer screening and speaking to patients to find out barriers for attendance. This work was ongoing at the time of our inspection, however we saw evidence that training had been delivered to local care home staff, and engagement events had been held with patients with a learning disability or serious mental health illness to begin to identify barriers.

The service understood 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. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

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 service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients 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.

National GP Patient Survey data collected between December 2024 to April 2025 showed lower than average patient satisfaction with access to services. 18.8% of patients responded positively when asked how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the telephone (national average 52.9%). 59.5% of patients responded positively when asked about their overall experience of contacting their GP practice (national average 69.6%).

In response to the findings the practice increased promotion of the NHS App as a method of contacting the practice and made changes to the appointment scheduling in an attempt to meet demand at the most popular times. In October 2025, the practice introduced a system of accessing appointments where all patients were required to submit an online form to request an appointment. Patients who were unable to access or use the online form were able to call or attend the practice in person where a member of staff would support or complete the form for them. The practice told us they had received positive feedback so far from staff and patients regarding the new system. However, due to the timing of our inspection the impact of the implementation of the new system had not yet been measured through the practice’s own surveys, or through a repeat of the National GP Patient Survey.

The provider had identified some areas regarding access that required improvement. These included that the service did not have an induction loop to assist people with hearing aids or cochlear implants. Also, the ground outside the practice and leading to the entrance was uneven and may be difficult to move around on for people who use mobility aids, wheelchairs or pushchairs. The provider had plans to improve these areas in the future by purchasing an induction loop and making changes to the external areas of the practice. Not all clinical rooms were accessible for wheelchair users, however there were 3 accessible rooms, and staff would ensure patients who had difficulty walking or moving around would be seen in these rooms.

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.

The practice was a veteran friendly GP practice which meant that patients were asked at registration if they had ever served in the Armed Forces and were coded appropriately on the practice’s clinical system. Patients were then signposted to relevant charities and support as appropriate.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patients’ experience 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 patients’ experience and outcomes. The provider was an accredited safe surgery which meant there were processes to ensure people without a fixed address or people seeking asylum could register at the practice. 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.

Patients 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.