Cross Keys 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 inspection, we rated this key question as Good. At 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.

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 practice was good at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We saw the appointment system and clinical skill mix was under constant review to reflect changes in demand. This included monthly reviews of access figures to highlight and act upon any peaks in demand. The practice shared this information with patients via monthly newsletters and included the number of appointments when patients ‘Did Not Attend’. For example, in July 2026 129 appointments were missed due to patients not attending, in June 2026 this figure was 124 and in May 2026 it was 89.

Leaders told us this was shared with patients to emphasise the importance of attending or cancelling appointments in a bid to improve access.

The practice performed generally in line with national averages in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey regarding access. This showed people could access the service when they needed it, for example:

• 77% of respondents to the survey said they felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, compared to a national average of 69%.
• 78% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 73%.

Whilst there were 2 areas/survey responses which had results, below the national average:

• 53% of respondents to the survey found it easy to contact this service by using their website, compared to a national average of 58%.
• 51% of respondents to the survey said they found it easy to get through to this service by telephone, compared to a national average of 57%.

Leaders in the practice highlighted, that in some aspects of access, patient feedback and satisfaction had increased, however there was still additional improvements to be made, specifically regarding telephone access. Leaders were optimistic and early feedback suggested the introduction of online access in September 2025 had improved telephone access, for example data presented highlighted the number of inbound telephone calls and the time waiting for calls to be answered had both reduced, thus improving telephone access.

Feedback provided from people during our inspection specifically regarding access, highlighted a prompt and responsive service was provided and they had no concerns with telephone access.

There was good access to appointments, with same day appointments still available during our site visit. Leaders also advised that they would accommodate patients who attended without an appointment whenever this was practicable.

All 3 sites were accessible with services on the ground floor, 1 of the sites was split level with adaptations made to ensure all patients could easily access the different rooms.

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. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience to address any local health inequalities. For example:

• The practice accommodated home visits and provided weekly ward rounds to 3 aligned care homes (approximately 110 residents) who accessed GP services from the practice.
• Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The practice was also a registered ‘Safe Surgery’ and supported patients or potential patients who were homeless, in temporary accommodation or seeking asylum. A ‘Safe Surgery’ is a GP practice with a declared commitment to addressing the barriers people face in accessing healthcare or support.
• The practice was an accredited Veteran Friendly practice with 185 veterans coded on the clinical record system. This meant that as part of the health commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant, the practice had a dedicated clinician who had a specialist knowledge of military related health conditions and veteran specific health services.

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.