Mortimer 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

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers. We found services were adapted to meet patient needs where possible.

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 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, 73%respondents found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone in comparison to the national average of 53%.

58%of the respondents usually got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to in comparison to the national average of 40%.

Patient feedback obtained through NHS Friends and Family test suggested they were seen promptly by the service. The provider reviewed multiple sources of patient feedback and developed action plans to address areas for improvement. We noted in response to PPG feedback the provider had made changes aimed at improving patient access.

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 address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services. Patients who were unable to access the service in person were offered home visits where clinically appropriate.

For example, 95%of the respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment in comparison to the national average of 90%.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The practice recognised that it serves a population that preferred traditional ways of accessing service and therefor chose not to adopt a digital triage system.

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.