Billericay 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 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 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 above the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey, with 75.3% of respondents reporting a positive overall experience of contacting the GP practice compared to an expected average of 69.5%. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone or in person. For example, 81% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of accessing this service was being good, compared to a national average of 75%. In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access for example the service introduced a cloud-based telephone system with a call back facility, while continuing to offer telephone and face-to face support for people less confident using digital services. The service worked to ensure people could access care and treatment in ways that met their individual needs. Staff supported patients who were less confident using digital services and alternative access routes remained available.

The premises were accessible, with ground floor consultation rooms and adjustments including wheelchair ramp access, hearing loop facilities and home visit arrangements. Extended access appointments and local hub services improved availability during evenings and weekends. The service monitored patient feedback and demand pressures to review and improve appointment systems and access pathways.

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. Staff identified and supported patients at greater risk of experiencing inequalities in access, care or outcomes, including carers, veterans, patients living with dementia, those receiving palliative care and patients with communication or mobility needs. Staff worked collaboratively with multidisciplinary teams and social prescribing services to improve wellbeing and access to community support for people who used the service. Leaders promoted vulnerable groups, including careers, veterans, people with mental health needs and those receiving palliative acre by providing tailored support during health reviews. Patient records included alerts for reasonable adjustments, telephone consultations, and support from care coordinators. Staff with lead roles helped improve continuity of care and outcomes for vulnerable people.

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.