Southfields Group 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

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.
We looked for evidence that the service met patients’ needs, and that staff treated patients equally and without discrimination.
Patients were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information patients could understand. Patients knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. Patients received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
 

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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. 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 national GP patient survey data collected between December 2024 and April 2025 showed 92% of participants said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment this was above the local average of 87% and national average of 86%.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients 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, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.
The practice was responsible for a weekly visit to a residential home for adults with a learning disability.
 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Data from the GP Patient survey 2025 showed that 74% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using their website. This was above the local average of 58% and national average of 51%.
Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language and online translation services. 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.
We reviewed 3 complaints in detail and found the process to be satisfactory. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy which had been reviewed in January 2026. The complaints policy was available on the practice website and included information for patients about how to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
 

The practice had things in place to ensure patients could access the service. This included wheelchair accessible premises on the ground floor and first floor. The practice also had 2 designated disabled parking spaces outside the practice.
The national GP Patient Survey data collected between December 2024 to April 2025 showed lower than average patient satisfaction with access to services. 58% of patients responded positively when asked how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the telephone (local average was 61% and national average was 53%). 87% of patients responded positively when asked about their overall experience of their GP practice (local average was 79% and national average was 75%).
The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
In October 2023 the practice changed their call handling system. In July 2025, this was outsourced to an external company and meant the practice was now using the same call handling systems as other members of the PCN.
The practice operated using a total triage model patients could request the service they wished to use and the clinician they wished to see, using the triage form. They were invited to state their preferred method of contact and preferred appointment type.
In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example they had extended appointments for patients with a learning disability. Patients 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.
The practice provided support for patients who may be financially disadvantaged or who were faced with transport issues to attend appointments. This had been in place for 10 years.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients 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 patients using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated patients 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 had processes to ensure patients could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless patients and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from patients 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 patients were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.
Staff kept a palliative care register and told us patients were reviewed according to their needs and discussed during meetings. The service had processes in place to review if care and preferences had been met in line with patients wishes.