St Peter's Medical Centre

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 assessment in October 2017, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 82 (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 people 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 people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people 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 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.

The service implemented systems to support continuity of care for people with complex needs, including the use of continuity flags on people’s records and the allocation of named clinical teams, for example GP, Nurse or Advanced Clinical Practitioner / Pharmacist. An audit in March 2026 found continuity was generally maintained, with plans to repeat the audit and expand the cohort to further improve outcomes.

The service told us they worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, the service provided care for people using a local Family Assessment Unit, which delivered residential and community-based parenting assessments. People’s records were flagged to highlight that families’ length of stay could vary, supporting appropriate ongoing care and communication.

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.

Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records. Information in the waiting room included a PPG noticeboard, along with resources on carer support, wellbeing services, and health promotion.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service monitored people’s experience through online reviews, the PPG, ‘have your say’ meetings, complaints, the annual National GP Patient survey, and instant messaging services.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of feedback, including complaints. For example, concerns about unclear information for people arriving late to appointments led the service to review and clarify its late attendance policy, share this in the practice and on the website, and improve communication and expectations for people.

The patient participant group (PPG) spoke positively about their interactions with the service, highlighting the quality of care and the responsiveness in implementing service improvements based on people’s feedback.

A survey conducted via PATCHS (an online system for people to contact their GP practice and give feedback) showed that people rated the service an average of 4.5 out of 5, with 86% saying they would recommend the service.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access the service in ways that met their needs, including online, in person and by telephone. The service considered the needs of people who may require additional support and offered longer appointments where appropriate. For example, for people with a learning disability and those who required interpretation support. In response to feedback from people who used the service, the service identified and implemented changes to improve access. This included introducing a new telephone system and installing handrails on the first floor.

The provider had improved access through the PATCHS online triage and consultation system, allowing people to submit requests 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Requests were reviewed by a clinical triage team across 7 days, including weekends when the service was closed. This enabled timely advice, assessment and access to the most appropriate clinician. Where a face-to-face or telephone appointment was required, this was arranged at the next available appropriate weekday appointment slot. Advanced clinical practitioners and clinical pharmacists used their skills to manage a range of presentations without GP involvement where clinically appropriate, with GPs available for advice and support when required. This improved access, reduced delays and ensured people received care from the most appropriate clinician.

The effectiveness of the system was monitored through monthly access audits shared with the PCN as part of the joint project. A review of 6 months of data demonstrated the system was effective in supporting access and meeting people’s needs. Feedback received by CQC from people using the service highlighted timely responses, prompt updates and appointments arranged according to clinical need. This was supported by the National GP Patient Survey 2025 results, where 95% of respondents reported a positive experience of contacting the service, compared with 70% nationally. Additionally, 88% reported a positive experience of contacting the service by telephone, compared with 53% nationally. This demonstrated the provider’s commitment to continually evaluating and improving access, ensuring the service remained responsive to the needs of its population.

The premises supported physical access, with ground-floor treatment rooms and level access at the entrance. Although the front door was not automatic, a bell was available and reception staff provided assistance when required. Some people commented on limited space to speak with reception staff and the controlled waiting room door, which, while in place for security reasons, could be less convenient. The service was aware of this feedback and advised that opportunities to make changes were limited due to the premises (a church) being a listed building. The service did however consider how improvements could be made while maintaining the requirements of the building.

The service provided a responsive and flexible service, including care for a local care home with 6 residents. Care home staff reported they could easily contact the service for both routine and urgent concerns, with same-day appointments and home visits available where required.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s 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 people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, 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.

The service delivered a homeless outreach clinic in collaboration with a charity working with the homeless and the local integrated care board. The service aimed to provide coordinated, outreach-based healthcare to individuals experiencing or at risk of homelessness in the local area, in order to reduce health inequalities and improve access to care. The service was responsible for the clinical delivery of the outreach clinic, with a GP and nurse delivering a weekly half-day clinic at an agreed community location. The clinic offered assessment, treatment, vaccinations, health screening, and referrals to primary care, mental health, substance misuse, and social services. The service supported continuity of care through GP registration, multidisciplinary team working, and collaboration with local authority housing services to enable holistic care. Clinical governance arrangements were maintained by the service, including the use of appropriate record-keeping systems, staff training in safeguarding and trauma-informed care, and regular monitoring through reporting.

This proactive and responsive outreach model demonstrated positive outcomes for people experiencing homelessness with complex and often unmet needs. Case examples showed that the clinic identified and managed significant physical health conditions, requiring urgent specialist intervention, as well as supporting people with chronic conditions, pain management, and recovery from injuries. The service also delivered timely mental health support, including crisis intervention, referral to specialist services, and ongoing management, which in some cases contributed to improved wellbeing, reduced substance misuse, and progression to stable housing and employment. Staff adopted a holistic approach to care, supporting people with wider determinants of health such as housing and access to benefits, alongside preventative care including health checks and screening. The service demonstrated flexibility in responding to individual needs, including providing practical interventions and follow-up care, which improved people’s outcomes and engagement with healthcare services. Unverified service data indicated that between June 2025 and April 2026, the clinic held 274 appointments. Of these, 72 people required a prescription, 57 required advice only, 34 were referred to other services, and 23 required a follow-up appointment. The data also indicated 9 AE attendances were avoided, with a further 177 identified as potential AE avoidances, and 1 hospital admission recorded. Feedback from the charity about the service was highly positive. The service was recognised for its commitment to reducing barriers and delivering practical, person-centred solutions, which encouraged greater engagement with health services.

The service also adapted care delivery to meet the needs of care home residents who could not attend the surgery, ensuring equitable access. This approach helped prevent distress and avoided escalation of behaviours, particularly for vulnerable residents.

People 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.