Ouse Valley Practice

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 service 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 75 (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 service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service performed in line with the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. The results showed most people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 74% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting the service as being good, compared to a national average of 73%. People who submitted feedback for this assessment also commented that they were able to access the service.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, there was lift access to the first floor waiting area and treatment rooms, and there was an automatic door to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service. The service was accessible to people with mobility difficulties.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address local health inequalities. The service provided a range of services to reduce the need for people to have to travel to health services. For example, the service provided a shared care service (in partnership with a specialist provider) for transgender and non-binary people providing ongoing prescribing once treatment had been initiated and stabilised by the specialist clinic. This was available to people registered with other practices in the area to promote accessibility.

The staff referred vulnerable people to the social prescriber and care coordinator to ensure they could access a wide range of available resources to support their wellbeing. For example, the care coordinator had telephoned people known to be frail following discharge from hospital to check they had everything they needed for recovery at home.

The service was able to prioritise continuity of GP for people with more complex ongoing care needs or people who considered this important if clinically appropriate. We received several comments from people about the positive impact of being able to see their ‘named GP’ regularly.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. People with learning disabilities were offered appointments that reflected their recorded needs and preferences, ensuring reasonable adjustments were made to support their access to care. The service proactively explained available services (such as cancer screening programs) to people with learning disabilities and their carers so they could make an informed choice to participate.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

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.