Holly Tree 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 service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey (GPPS). 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, 77% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%. Since the inspection GPPS have published new results in July 2026. The new data mirrored the results of last year’s survey with 78% of people reporting a good overall experience of contacting the service compared to a national average of 73%.

The 2025 survey results showed the percentage of respondents to the GPPS who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 79% compared to a national average of 53%. This experience had continued as the 2026 results were 80% compared to a national average of 57%. The 2026 results were in line with the national average for how easy people find it to contact the service via the website and were above the national average when compared to how easy it is to use the NHS app when contacting the service.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. This included the service changing their process for requesting appointments. Previously this had been an on the day request system and many patients had liked this approach, but the service had found this did not always meet the needs of people who preferred to book in advance, for example the working age population. The system was changed so that once a request is triaged, if it is clinically urgent people are seen on the day and if it is not but there is capacity, they can also be seen on the day but if people prefer to wait, they can book ahead for routine care and treatment. Feedback had also showed that people wanted extended access appointments to be offered at this service not at other locations, so the service had worked with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) to meet this request.

Treatment rooms were currently available on the ground floor. A ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service.

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 understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, the service was aware it had a higher-than-average proportion of elderly patients living independently in their own homes. They had assessed whether any changes were necessary to ensure these people’s needs were met and they were not disadvantaged but had found many had digital access and if not, accessed the service via the other available options so they were not at risk of inequal experience or outcomes.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Leaders told us they were aware of community of Travellers within the service boundary but had not identified any areas in service delivery that disadvantaged this group of people and that feedback was they were happy with their experience of the service.

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.