Meadow View 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 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 79 (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 higher than national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. For example, 56% of respondents to the survey responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone, compared to a national average of 53%. Also, 54% of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice using their website, compared to a national average of 51%.

Since our last inspection staff had introduced several service improvements to ensure people could access care, treatment and support when needed and in a way that worked for them. This included the introduction of weekend/late evening appointments and a new phone system (with a call back option). Leaders were optimistic about how the new phone system would improve patient satisfaction on phone access. We also noted that an online consultation service had been introduced; allowing patients to submit symptoms or requests to the practice for subsequent triage. Staff told us the recent recruitment of a phlebotomist meant that patients no longer had to travel to the local hospital for blood tests. We were also told the practice hosted a physiotherapy clinic which again meant services were closer to home and easier to access.

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.

For example, community health information events took place in 2023 and 2025: designed to empower patients with the knowledge to improve their health and well-being. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) Chair spoke positively about how patients’ lived experience had helped shaped the events which included information about managing diabetes, preventing heart disease and staying active. We were told the events had also helped drive a substantial increase in the uptake of Electrocardiograms (ECGs) tests aimed at detecting heart rhythm irregularities. A recent audit of ECG tests had been undertaken by a consultant cardiologist and highlighted that ECG tests were of a good quality with zero ‘red flag’ ECG tests having been missed.

Leaders understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, they told us that having a multi-lingual reception team addressed potential language barriers for people seeking to access care and treatment. This was also reflected in positive patient feedback on how staff removed barriers to treatment; including supporting patients who experienced difficulty using digital services and the installation of an entrance ramp to the building.

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

The PPG Chair spoke positively about how the practice routinely acted on patient feedback about access barriers.
 

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.