Lower Gornal 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.

People who used the service provided positive feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment.

Information about how to raise a complaint was provided to people. The provider worked within the Primary Care Network (PCN) and supported local service developments. Continuity of care was offered to patients where required or when patients requested consultations with specific clinicians. The provider made reasonable adjustments to ensure the premises were accessible to patients who required disabled access. A wheelchair was available on-site for patients who required assistance.

This service scored 68 (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. Discussion with leaders demonstrated they had a good understanding of the practice’s demographics, challenges they faced and systems in place which placed patients at the centre of care. Referral systems ensured patients received consistent, coordinated care when they moved between services.

Peoples overall experience of contacting the GP service was positive as indicated in the National GP Patient survey which showed 71%, which was higher in comparison to the national average of 70%. In addition, 84% of people found the reception and administration team helpful. This was above the local and national average. We observed staff who were supportive of people’s 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 practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the needs of its community. For example, the introduction of phlebotomy services, ear syringing and electrocardiogram (ECGs).

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, translation services for those who did not speak English as a first language.

Individual communication needs were noted on the patient’s record. Leaflets were available in the reception area and a newsletter was displayed to provide patients with information on GP’s availability and community events.

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.

Complaints were managed in accordance with the practice’s policy. However, the sharing of learning from complaints was not consistent. For example, this was not discussed in practice meetings, limiting staff awareness of changes made in response to patient feedback.

During the assessment, feedback was gathered from a representative of the Patient Participation Group (PPG). In collaboration with practice management, the PPG had developed a newsletter aimed at informing patients about available services within the practice and local community.

The service ensured that individuals were able to access appropriate care, support, and treatment through a range of options. However, we observed that the average wait time to be seen by some clinicians ranged from 45 minutes to an hour, indicating areas where scheduling efficiency could be strengthened.

The service offered flexible access options, including online, in-person, and telephone appointments. However, we noted that appointment availability was more heavily weighted toward nursing staff, with fewer appointments accessible with GPs.

People who used the service provided mixed feedback with regards to their ability to access care and treatment. The percentage of respondents in the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to their experience of contacting the practice was 71% which was higher (compared to 70% nationally). Patient satisfaction for finding it easy to get through to the practice by phone was 46% which was lower (compared to 53% nationally). Patients reported they were familiar with and used the on-line service to book appointments with 63% of respondents finding it easy to contact the practice using the NHS APP, which was higher (compared to 49% nationally) and 45%finding it easy to contact the GP practice by website which was lower (compared to 51% nationally).

The provider was aware of the requirements to meet the Accessible Information Standards (AIS), and the patient record system was used to alert staff to any communication needs of the patient so that staff could then communicate effectively with the patient. The premises was managed by NHS property services, although no parking was available for patients, treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and were accessible.

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.

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. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, 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. The provider was committed in registering as a safer surgery, supporting veterans and improving the experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other related identities (LGBTQ+).

Friends and Family Test data for May 2025 showed that 99% of patients rated their overall experience of the service as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, reflecting high levels of patient satisfaction.

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. However, our review of records relating to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions revealed limited documentation or coding within patient records. Following our discussion, the provider acknowledged the importance of establishing a process to ensure that copies or summaries of DNACPR decisions are accessible to other healthcare professionals, particularly during emergencies or transitions between care settings.

The provider held regular palliative care meetings, led by an Advanced Nurse Practitioner (ANP), with input from relevant specialist teams. These meetings were designed to ensure patients' needs were consistently reviewed and appropriately addressed. Continuity of care was prioritised, with specific efforts made to maintain regular contact with palliative patients and to deliver personalised care aligned with individual preferences and clinical needs.