Cutlers Hill 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 the surgery met people’s needs, and 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 82 (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 surgery was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to the demographic needs of the surgery’s population and its person‑centred culture and ethos, the leaders and staff actively promoted telephone and in person access, as well as online access. This ensured those without smartphone or computer access were delivered an equitable and responsive service to individual needs. Due to the rurality and the older population of the surgery, staff signposted people to local Hoppa bus transport to assist with access to the surgery and hospital appointments.

Surgery leaders explained that all appointment requests were triaged and regularly audited to ensure both clinical and non-clinical staff provided the best possible care. The surgery had acted on feedback from people by introducing access to a Saturday morning remote clinic for working people that could not attend during the core working hours at the surgery. A phlebotomy service was available within the surgery every day so that people did not have to attend the hospital for this service.

The surgery had high levels of satisfaction in relation to access for example results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed the surgery performed significantly above national averages for access indicators. For example, 78% of respondents reported it was easy to contact the surgery by phone, compared with a national average of 53%. Additionally, 81% of respondents rated their overall experience of contacting the GP practice positively, compared with a national average of 69%. This demonstrated that people were able to access the surgery when needed and in a manner that met their preferences.

We reviewed 39 compliments received by the surgery, alongside feedback from people we spoke with during the onsite assessment. We received feedback from the integrated care board and the local care homes that received a service from the surgery. Feedback consistently reflected high levels of satisfaction regarding the ease and speed of access, and the helpful and supportive staff when assessing the surgery either by telephone or online. Neither the surgery or the CQC had received any complaints regarding access in the previous 12 months. Additionally, we received 4 compliments about the surgery through our ‘give feedback on care’ link on our website.

Interpreter services were available for those people whose first language was not English, and for people with a hearing impairment a hearing loop was available.

In response to feedback from people who used the surgery in the annual GP Patient Survey, leaders at the surgery had conducted an annual audit and made changes from their findings to improve patient satisfaction.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment. We saw examples of personalised care that had ensured people received equity in their care at the surgery and enhanced their overall experience and treatment outcome. The surgery leaders showed us actions and changes they had made for people to meet their specific service needs. These changes ensured the surgery services were accessible and appropriately tailored for them. There was a co-ordinated approach for people involving the entire surgery team throughout all aspects of their care and treatment, which was exampled within people’s records showing their preferences.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, staff had established dedicated support for people who were waiting to access specialist mental health support with access to a mental health nurse. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the surgery, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the surgery, which included those who did not have access to the internet or reduced communication capabilities. This was reflected in all the feedback and compliments shared from people who used the surgery, which spoke positively about the way people’s individual needs were met.

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.