The Village 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.

We assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question. At our last inspection, we rated this key question as Good. Following this inspection, 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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Our remote 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 worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. The service had tailored its assistance to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of health screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider to ensure continuity of care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats 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.

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.

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.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data from 2025, and from feedback from members of the community, the service had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure the premises were accessible.

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.

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 supported people to plan for important life changes, including at the end of life. People were involved in discussions about future care needs, preferences, and what mattered most to them. Cultural, spiritual and personal beliefs were respected in decision-making.

Where appropriate, people were supported to develop advance care plans, including do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions, lasting powers of attorney, and preferred place of care. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they reflected changes in health, circumstances, or wishes, and information was shared with partner agencies where relevant.

People told us they valued the open and respectful way in which staff supported discussions about future care.