Clement Road 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that 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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The practice worked in partnership with other organisations to decide how best to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs. Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of professionals.

The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, a GP Partner served as the Clinical Director within the Primary Care Network (PCN). Leaders and staff worked collaboratively with a range of partner organisations and neighbouring practices to effectively meet the needs of their patient population. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information promoting health and wellbeing was readily available within the practice, and the website provided helpful resources to support health awareness and promotion. Patients were given access to clear information and signposting to help them understand how to access services. Interpreter services were available to support patient communication needs.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed how to access their care records, and the practice website was accessible in a range of languages.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Information about how to make a complaint was available within the practice and on the practice website. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. The practice had recorded 9 complaints in the previous 12 months. An analysis of complaints had been undertaken to identify trends and themes. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. Evidence provided showed that between June and July 2026 the practice had received 185 responses. A total of 171 (92%) of people had rated the practice as very good/good and 7 (3%) responses had rated them as poor/very poor. We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment people received from the practice.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The GP national patient survey showed 39% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was below the local average of 53% and the national average of 57% and 62% of respondents stating they had a good overall experience in contacting the GP which was below the local average of 68% and the national average of 73%.

The practice operated a cloud-based telephony system to manage patient calls. Data showed that monthly reviews of the telephone system were undertaken. For example, in June 2026 the practice received 2,420 calls, with 70% answered with an average waiting time of 5 minutes and 43 seconds.

A call back facility was in place to reduce waiting times for patients attempting to contact the practice. Records indicated that 163 patients requested a call back during July, of which 152 (92%) were successfully completed.

The practice acknowledged that telephone access remained an area for improvement and had taken action to address this, including recruiting an additional staff member to support call handling and improve patient access.

Despite patients reporting difficulties in getting through to the practice on the telephone it was open from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday, Tuesday and Thursday with extended access available at the practice on Wednesday and Friday 8am until 8.30pm. Patients also had extended access available on a weekend within the primary care network.

The site was accessible to people with additional needs including disabled and pram access. People could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and first floor which was accessible by a lift or stairs.

Patients were able to access same day and pre-bookable appointments. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. We saw that the practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, flags were highlighted in the clinical records to identify reasonable adjustments, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place and access to interpreters was available. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability. People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required. We observed staff treating patients equally and without discrimination.

The practice worked collaboratively with other local practices and community partners to help address health inequalities within the local population. For example, the practice participated in a cancer awareness event and were collaborating with practices to raise awareness in child immunisations.

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 was registered as a ‘Safe Surgery’ and supported patients who were homeless, in temporary accommodation or seeking asylum. A ‘Safe Surgery’ is a GP practice with a declared commitment to addressing the barriers patients face in accessing healthcare or support, including refugees. The practice was also veteran accredited. Veteran accredited is a programme that enables GP practices to sign up voluntarily to undertake specialist training on veterans' health and wellbeing for patients who have served with the armed forces, and their families.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.