Woodsetton 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 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.

Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, safeguarding and mental capacity. 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.

Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of clinicians. The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP National Patient Survey were in line with local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 85% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. This was above with the local average of 82% and slightly below the national average of 86%.

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

The practice 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 diverse needs of its community. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

Staff worked with multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively and in a timely manner to support good outcomes for people.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services to support patients whose first language was not English, ensuring effective communication. There was also a range of health factsheet in braille to support those visually impaired. It also used a range of communication channels, including, its website, and engagement with the Patient Participation Group (PPG), to share information and updates with the community. The practice had processes in place to identify, record, and meet patients’ individual communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Relevant information was recorded and coded within the clinical system, with alerts used to ensure staff were aware of any specific requirements, enabling personalised care.

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.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 88% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was above the local average of 84% and the national average of 87%.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. Evidence provided showed that between August and September 2025 the practice had received 187 responses. A total of 172 of people had rated the practice as very good/good and 9 responses had rated them as poor/very poor. Some of the positive comments the practice had received included staff were helpful, professional and polite. Negative comments were about the wait to be seen.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment people received from the practice.

The practice had recently established a Patient Participation Group (PPG), which had met once at the time of our assessment. The provider reported that efforts were being made to encourage greater patient involvement, although engagement had been limited despite promotion during the flu campaign.

We observed evidence of PPG promotion within the reception areas on both floors of the practice. In addition, the provider participated in a wider Primary Care Network (PCN) PPG, enabling patient views to be represented at a locality level.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice was open from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday with extended access available at the practice on Mondays 6.30pm until 8pm. Patients also had extended access available throughout the week and weekend. This was on rotation of local practices within the primary care network. The website provided information on accessibility for the out of hours sites. A poster was also visible in the practice.

The site was accessible to people with additional needs including disabled and pram access. People could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and first floor which was accessible by a lift or stairs.

Patients were able to access same day and prebookable appointments. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. We saw that the practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients.

The GP national patient survey showed 37% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was below the local average of 48% and the national average of 53% and 66% of respondents stating they had a good overall experience in contacting the GP which was below the local average of 71% and the national average of 75%.

The practice operated a cloud-based telephony system to manage patient calls. On the day of our assessment, 9 appointments were available. Data showed that monthly reviews of the telephone system were undertaken. For example, in September 2025 the practice received 5,240 calls, with 87% answered with an average waiting time of 6 minutes and 16 seconds.

A call back facility was in place to reduce waiting times for patients attempting to contact the practice. Records indicated that 344 patients requested a call back during September, of which 321 were successfully completed.

To further support improvements in patient access, the practice utilised an NHS quality improvement tool. Monthly reports were analysed to identify areas for change, and actions were taken to inform planning around capacity and demand. In addition, the practice carried out monthly audits of the availability and uptake of the extended service.

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.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place and access to interpreters was available. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability with designated parking spaces.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. The practice was registered as a safe surgery and veteran accredited. 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 with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

People we spoke with on the day of assessment was positive about the services provided. 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.

Patients 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. We saw that staff understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making when patients were making decisions for their future care needs.

Care planning, including palliative care planning processes were embedded within the practice. We saw that the practice worked with patients, their carers, and other stakeholders to ensure that effective care was being provided. 

We reviewed a random sample of 3 clinical records of people who had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) form in place and found they were relevant, completed and available within the clinical record.