Hillview Family Practice Also known as Dr Montague & Partners

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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People 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. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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 supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual 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 care and support for people were regularly reviewed and changed as people’s needs changed. Longer appointment times were given to people with Long-Term Conditions (LTC) to ensure care needs were discussed.

Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. People were involved in decisions about their care.

Accessible standards and barriers to care were considered for people, with alerts added to care records to ensure staff were aware the person had additional needs. Staff would book longer appointments for those who needed it. Staff told us they offered reasonable adjustments and took individual preferences and needs into consideration. For example, offering access to British Sign Language (BSL) services for an interpreter to be present during consultation. This helped people understand their care, treatment and conditions.

Leaders and staff, we spoke with, felt people were directed to the right clinician the first time, which enabled them to provide effective person-centred care. For example, referring patients to the pharmacy for minor illnesses and to the social prescriber where the person did not have a health care need.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. They 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 long-standing clinical staff team provided continuity and stability with minimal requirements for locum staff. Staff had forged excellent working relationships with many multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of people and all staff we spoke with were familiar with the people who attended the service.

Our review of the clinical system demonstrated that referrals to other services were made promptly, and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes.

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 in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. The service promoted the use of the NHS app and staff supported people to do this.

The practice supported people and their carers when needed to find further information; and to access community and advocacy services. The service website contained information to support and educate people, this included Young Persons Services, which offered a confidential service.

Information was available in a range of formats. For example, alternative languages, large text, easy to read or pictorial.

Training records showed staff had completed training on General Data Protection Regulation. Staff felt supported in meeting people’s communication needs. Information is only shared with people that need to know.

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.

Complaints we reviewed showed the service responded to feedback appropriately, openly and in a non-defensive manner. Staff were aware of their duty of candour and to be open and honest when things went wrong.

The practice routinely asked people to complete NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. Data from the FFT showed that for each of the months for August and October 2025, the service received positive comments from 99% of the people who had provided feedback.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed the service achieved 89% from respondents stating they felt listened to (the national average was 87%).

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service actively promoted and supported people with a learning disability and autistic people to access care that met their needs. This included providing walk-through videos of the premises, introducing staff and showing what the treatment rooms looks like. This was to reduce anxiety and support informed access.

The premises was wheelchair accessible, and all rooms were on the ground floor. The service had a hearing loop. People could access appointments online, over the phone and in-person. People could access telephone appointments at extended hours on Sundays. This ensured access for working people and others who were unable to speak to the surgery during normal opening hours.

The service offered a range of appointments. These included emergency on the day, pre-bookable and clinics for conditions such as diabetes or asthma reviews.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed the service achieved 53% from respondents stating how easy it was to contact their service on the phone (this matched the national average).

The service offered extended clinics for cervical screening to ensure people could attend. They had a project to measure the success of a smear campaign targeted towards people with a learning disability and autistic people. This involved creating pictorial and easy to read guidance on what to expect from the appointment, meet the staff and view the treatment rooms. This lessened anxiety around this experience and saw an increase in attendance.

The service utilised an interpreter service to enable people had access to care. They recognised a person’s need for a sign language interpreter in an alternative language and arranged for the interpreter to be present during consultations.

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.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patient’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 patient’s experience and outcomes. The service had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and refugees.

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.

For transgender, non-binary and intersex patients’ arrangements were in place to ensure they would continue to receive appropriate health checks, and their preferred name was used.

The service liaised regularly with community services to discuss and manage the needs of patients with complex medical issues.

There was an equal opportunity and diversity policy in place which was accessible to all staff and all staff had received training to improve their understanding and awareness.

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 showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.

We reviewed patient records where there was a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). The service were assessing capacity to ensure the person was able to make the decision independently. The service were reviewing the process around forms received from hospitals, as these were not consistently signed by the consultants completing them.