Audlem 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 79 (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 was exceptional at ensuring 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, 86% of respondents to the survey described their it was easy to contact the 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. This included the service enhancing access to traveller and boating communities by devising an access model that was shared as good practice with other services. Appointments for people with additional needs were tailored to ensure access. The service offered longer appointments for those who needed it, and people with learning disabilities were offered an appointment at quieter times and with the same clinician to ensure continuity. The practice was on ground level and had been adapted 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 treated people equally and without discrimination. 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 the boating community and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English as their first language or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive. Feedback from people who had attended this clinic was overwhelmingly positive, with people describing it as “exemplary” and “professional and effective”.

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.