The Tollesbury Practice Also known as Darcy 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.

Theservicemadesurepeoplecouldaccessthecare,supportandtreatmenttheyneededwhen

theyneededit.

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, 74% of respondents to the survey responded positively to how easy it was to contact the service by phone, compared to a national average of 53%. In addition, 86% of people responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice, compared to a national average of 70%. Staff spoken with told us access was determined by patient need and they worked to accommodate people. For example, if a patient did not feel able to call or request an appointment online, they could access the practice on foot and could request an appointment this way.

Staff members spoken with told us the reception team had undertaken care navigation training and were able to direct patients to the appropriate clinician for their care. On the day appointments were available each weekday and bookable by phone between 8am-9.30am. The morning appointments were for urgent medical needs. Routine appointments were bookable via an online system and the practice told us they responded within 48 hours or before. Afternoon appointments at the practice were for routine care. Leaders told us that if a child required an on the day appointment, they would always be seen.

Treatment and consulting rooms were on the ground floor. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users or baby buggies. Accessible parking was available on the premises.

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, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, the practice had a social prescriber to support patients as needed including support for people with dementia and those diagnosed with cancer. The practice was a dementia friendly practice, and the patient toilet facilities were dementia standard. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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. For example, friends and family data analysis demonstrated 1916 patients had left comments across the previous 9 months. 1646 of these comments stated the experience at the practice was very good, 206 stated it was good, 26 neither good nor poor, 6 patients did not know, and 32 patients stated their experience was poor or very poor. This data demonstrates that patients who commented on their experience of the practice were overwhelmingly positive.

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.