Seaton and Colyton Medical Practice

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 for access of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. For example, 81% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%. In addition, 71% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the GP practice on the phone, compared to a national average of 53%.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. The service engaged with the General Practice Improvement Programme (GPIP) and adopted the new ‘total triage’ model in December 2024 to promote equity in access (GPIP - a programme which provides tailored support to GP services to make changes and improvements).

People could access appointments online, over the telephone and in person. Reception staff helped people to fill in the online medical request forms if they were unable to do so. People could use the electronic device at the reception to complete the form. All medical requests, regardless of how they were received, were processed through the same triage process by duty doctors based on clinical needs and urgency. A patient participation group (PPG) representative commented the new system was a vast improvement and people’s requests were dealt with quickly and efficiently (A PPG is a group of people who represented the views of people using the service).

When the new triage system was launched, the service worked collaboratively with the PPG to tackle digital barrier of using the online consultation system. This was achieved through a series of drop-in sessions where people were shown how to use the system and provided with hands-on support.

We saw appointments were available to book the same day for urgent appointments. The wait for routine, pre-bookable appointments with their named doctor was approximately 3 weeks (A named doctor is an accountable doctor who is responsible for coordinating people’s care). People could be seen earlier if they did not require an appointment with a specific doctor. Pre-booked appointments were available every Tuesday and Thursday evening to enhance access for working people and others who were unable to attend during normal opening hours.

There was level access to the premises, and all the clinical rooms were on the ground floor. The service was equipped with hearing loop system for people with hearing impairment. A wheelchair was available at the reception for people with mobility 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.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services to address any local health inequalities. For example, the service recognised additional health needs of their rural farming community. The service connected with the local farming community to understand their needs and barriers to inform health service planning.

The service used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, including any hidden disabilities, to alert staff.

With the support from the PPG, the service hosted monthly carers’ coffee mornings at the service. The service invited carers to attend where a speaker delivered talks and guidance to the carers and refreshment was also provided. Feedback from a PPG representative showed the event was very popular and carers were very appreciative of the event.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The leaders commissioned an in-person equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) training for staff members in 2025, in addition to their online learning to enhance their understanding of EDI.

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 additional support some people may need when attending their appointment, such as a longer appointment at a quieter time of the day.

The service was an accredited veteran-friendly practice. The service supported veteran’s physical and mental health, and they could be referred to dedicated specialist healthcare services when required.

The service was flexible in its approach to supporting people. For example, home visits could be arranged if required. The service allocated a named GP to each care home that they worked with and carried out weekly ward round calls to discuss concerns.

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 no access to the internet. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the service and to CQC, was overwhelmingly positive. Comments included, “a strong culture of a patient centred approach”, “always listens, doesn't judge me” and “makes me feel like I really matter”.

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.