The Shaftesbury Medical Centre

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 75 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. The 2025 National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. 85% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment, which was just below the national average of 86%.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, which meant 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.

In the 2025 National GP Survey, 93% felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment which was above the 92% national average.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. All members of staff received training on the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) as part of their induction.

During the site visit, we did not see evidence that patients were made aware of being recorded by CCTV; however, after the on-site visit, the provider provided evidence patients are now made aware of the CCTV.

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 that complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. All staff knew the process for responding to patient’s complaints. All patients we spoke to knew of how to make a complaint if they wanted to.

In the National GP Survey, 87% of patients were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was below national average 91%.

The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) who met regularly to raise and discuss issues with the practice. This resulted in positive changes occurring such as automatic doors being installed at the entrance.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In the 2025 National GP patient survey, 60% of patients found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone. This was above the national average of 53%.

In response to the 2024 National GP Patient Survey data and as well as feedback from the PPG, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service which included installing automatic doors to enter the building, a new improved website, an upgraded telephone system which included a call-back system. The practice recruited more reception staff to help with demand.

As a result of the NHS Friends and Family feedback, the practice made efforts to enhance the online booking system which included clearer instructions and larger amounts of appointment slots.

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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

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.