Thaxted 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 79 (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 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 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.

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 needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of immunisation and screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available. The practice was active in contacting the families who had not taken up the offer of childhood immunisations to have ongoing discussions and information sharing relating to the benefits of the immunisation programme.

Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

There was a wide variety of information about health and wellbeing, including community based services, on display in the waiting areas.

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 practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

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

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

The percentage of respondents to the National GP patient survey 2026 who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 92% compared with the national average of 73% and the percentage of respondents who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 78% compared to the national average of 57%.

Local care providers told us that the practice prioritised provision for children and young people in local care homes to receive appointments either at the surgery or in their home at a time that was best for them. People with mental health needs were also prioritised for appointments.

A GP visited a local care home for older people on a weekly basis and worked closely with the local Community Matron to ensure people did not have to tell their stories more than once and to agree on a joined-up care plan.

Some patients had an alert on their patient record to indicate they needed priority for an appointment. The practice kept some ‘blocked appointments’ for this group of people until mid-afternoon each day.

People we spoke with during our assessment told us how easy it was to contact the practice and get an appointment, including on the day or next day appointments.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a lift was in place to other rooms on the 1st floor.

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 practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers, and active service personnel in the event of a need for urgent medical care. 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.

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, and our observation of the daily clinical meeting, showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care. This information was shared with other services when necessary.