The Sele 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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 96 (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 provider was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider offered a range of access routes to meet the differing needs and preferences of patients, including telephone, email, online consultations, the NHS App and face-to-face appointments. Online consultations were available for most of the day, and the practice offered early morning and later appointments to support working people and school-aged children. Patients could also access extended hours appointments, including Saturdays, through the local GP Federation. Where appropriate, people were seen at home, including those who were housebound or too frail to attend the practice. Staff also carried out regular ward rounds at affiliated care homes to ensure timely access to care.

Staff demonstrated a proactive and flexible approach to improving access. The practice's digital lead provided 1-to-1 support, telephone guidance and workshops to help patients access and use digital services. This support was particularly beneficial for patients who were less confident using technology, helping to reduce digital exclusion and improve access to care. The impact of this approach was reflected in the 2026 National GP Patient Survey, where 87% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, compared with an ICS average of 58% and a national average of 54%. Leaders regularly reviewed telephone demand and appointment capacity, deploying additional staff and creating extra appointments where required to respond to patient need. These arrangements helped ensure patients could access care in a timely way and were reflected in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey, where 91% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by phone, compared with an ICS average of 62% and a national average of 57%. This was consistent with feedback from members of the Patient Participation Group (PPG), who also told us that telephone access to the practice was good. Staff told us GPs would often go above and beyond to accommodate patient need. For example, they made every effort to support patients requiring urgent or same-day assessment and sought to ensure patients were seen when clinically necessary.

The provider actively identified and addressed barriers to access for patients who may experience disadvantage or have additional needs. For example, patients living with autism who found waiting in busy reception areas difficult could wait in their car and be contacted when it was their turn to be seen. This personalised approach helped reduce anxiety and improved access to care. Reasonable adjustments were clearly recorded on patient records and tailored approaches were used for people with a learning disability, autistic people and others requiring additional support. This included personalised invitations and recall processes, flexible appointment arrangements, carer involvement, easy-read information and alternative communication methods. These approaches supported engagement with the service and helped improve uptake of appointments, annual reviews and national screening programmes among patients who may otherwise experience barriers to access.

The premises were fully accessible, with all consultation rooms located on the ground floor. Additional adjustments included a lowered reception desk, interpreter services, hearing support, accessible toilets, disabled parking bays, wheelchair access and specialist equipment where required.

Patient feedback and the examples we reviewed during the assessment demonstrated the provider's proactive approach to reducing barriers to access. Through tailored support, reasonable adjustments and flexible access arrangements, the service worked to ensure people could access care, treatment and support in a way that met their individual needs.

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 understood the importance of providing inclusive and equitable care and made reasonable adjustments to meet people’s individual needs. Patients with specific support needs were appropriately coded on the clinical system to help ensure these needs were recognised and responded to consistently.

The provider took proactive steps to identify and support people who may be at greater risk of poorer health outcomes or experience barriers to accessing care. Care coordinators actively promoted uptake of national screening programmes among groups including people with a learning disability, housebound patients, wheelchair users and those experiencing anxiety or agoraphobia. They contacted patients individually to identify barriers to participation and provided tailored support to encourage attendance at cervical, bowel and lung cancer screening appointments.

The provider had established tailored arrangements to support people living in care homes and those with a learning disability. Staff carried out regular care home ward rounds and doctors participated in multidisciplinary team meetings to support coordinated care and improve outcomes. The practice also operated a dedicated annual health check programme for people with a learning disability. Health checks were undertaken by doctors, supporting continuity of care and enabling clinicians to develop a good understanding of patients’ individual needs. Feedback from a care home supported by the practice was positive about this approach.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination and took steps to reduce barriers to accessing primary care services. The provider had processes in place to support registration for people in vulnerable circumstances, including those experiencing homelessness. For example, people experiencing homelessness could register without a permanent address and, where appropriate, use the practice address for correspondence relating to their care and treatment.

The provider also used audits to identify and address potential inequalities in access to care and outcomes. For example, an audit confirmed that eligible transgender patients within the practice population had been identified and supported to access cervical screening in line with current guidance. Leaders worked with partner organisations and local services to help address health inequalities and improve people’s experiences and outcomes.

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.