The Medical Centre

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.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

All online consultation requests were risk assessed, and those which were categorised as high risk, were booked in for face to face on the day appointments. This allowed the acute on the day team time to triage the less urgent and routine requests which needed to be clinically checked to ensure no high-risk requests had been missed by the automated online system. The triaging process enabled people to see the right clinician or health care worker first time to get the care and treatment needed to meet their needs.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the uptake of screening programmes. 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 to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed how to access their care records.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of people’s feedback, including complaints.

People who had consented to be contacted via text message were sent a Family and Friends message after each appointment, to provide feedback. The service received mainly positive responses, averaging 92%. Responses were read through each week to identify any concerns and categorised into themes and grouped together, for example, appointments, dispensary and how staff treated people. The service used AI to assist in identifying themes and trends. Results were routinely shared via social media, posters and on waiting rooms screens, along with actions the service had taken to address concerns. The service had implemented a system to monitor whether actions taken were effective.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Information from the National GP survey showed (30/12/24 to 1/4/25):

• 31.3% of respondents responded positively to their overall experience of contacting their GP service. (National average 69.9%.)
• 9.2% responded positively to how easy it was to contact the GP service on the phone. (National average 52.9%.)

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from people the service had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had introduced an automated function on telephone lines to allow people to check and cancel appointments; and introduced a callback facility so that people were not held in a queue. The service was continuing their work on expanding the range of options to direct people to the relevant teams, such as for palliative care.

The service operated a total triage system, and requests could be made online, over the telephone, and in person. Assistance could be provided with completing triage forms. If a person did not have access to a computer, then they could contact the service and reception staff would complete the form over the phone.

The workflow coordinator met with the GPs monthly to discuss appointment availability and if needed changes would be made to the appointment system to improve access for patients.

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

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

When reviews were planned for people with a learning disability, these were planned in advance. Questionnaires would be sent to the person to complete with assistance from their carers or other relevant people and returned to the service. This enabled the service to focus the review on what the person wanted to discuss, as well as monitoring their health needs.

People’s communication needs were added to their records, along with guidance on how these needs would be met.

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.