Lansdowne 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 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 premises were wheelchair accessible, with all clinical rooms located on the ground floor. An automatic door had been installed at the entrance to support ease of access.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. For example, the service introduced a new cloud-based phone system with features such as call queuing, real-time monitoring and a call-back function after 5 minutes. This system enabled leaders to monitor call wait times and the number of calls waiting, supporting the appropriate allocation of staff and resources. Telephone data showed an average wait time of approximately 3 minutes or less had been achieved consistently across recent months. Alerts were also in place to prompt additional staff to support if wait times increased. Performance data was reviewed at regular meetings to analyse trends, share insights, and agree on actions to improve call handling and reduce wait times.

The service supported people to access care more easily by providing enhanced access arrangements. For example, people were able to secure appointments outside of core opening hours, such as Saturday and evening clinics. This approach offered more flexibility, allowing people, including those working typical office hours, to access healthcare at convenient times.

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed 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, 79% of respondents described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%. This was also reflected in feedback from people who used the service that we spoke with as part of this assessment. However, some of these people advised they wanted more face-to-face opportunities with the service. The service reported they were aware of the increased demand and preference for face-to-face appointments. They had already put arrangements in place by ensuring that a higher proportion of appointment slots were available for face-to-face consultations within GP rotas, with flexibility to adapt appointment slots to meet individual needs.

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.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to reduce barriers and improve people’s experiences, working with local and voluntary sector services to address health inequalities, including supporting people residing at a temporary accommodation. The service also tailored care to meet the needs of diverse populations. This included delivering healthcare to a local private school with a proportion of international students, as well as providing healthcare services to refugees. The service had access to translation services where required, and made reasonable adjustments for people with language needs, such as longer appointments and advance preparation. Staff had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training, as well as LGBTQ+ training, as part of their mandatory training. LGBTQ+ training was made mandatory at the service to ensure staff delivered inclusive, equitable care and addressed people’s specific needs. The service had recently created a new protocol and process that promoted the uptake of cervical screening in the transgender community, informed by a review of demographic needs within the local population.

Staff understood the importance of delivering inclusive care and made reasonable adjustments to support equitable outcomes. Processes were in place to enable people to register with the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances or without a fixed address. For example, people with no formal address were able to register under the service’s address. The service engaged with community organisations to better understand and support groups such as the Gypsy, Roma, Traveller and Boater communities, and adapted communication methods as required.

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. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive. Leaders also sent questionnaires to people who were newly registered at the service which included questions about their previous experiences to identify areas for improvement. Responses were reviewed and used to inform service development. For example, this feedback contributed to the early introduction of an online consultation system, to better meet the needs of its working-age population, before this became a nationally set contractual requirement.

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.