Brereton Surgery

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. 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. Reception staff directed people towards the most appropriate health care professional and were offered an on the day to meet their needs. On the day appointments were released throughout the day to ensure appointments were available for booking later in the day. People were advised to complete the online consultation form once the on the day appointments had been allocated. The duty doctor decided on the most appropriate course of action taking into account the information submitted. The service offered evening appointments one day a week, and weekend appointments were offered through the Primacy Care Network hub. Home visits were available for people who were housebound and the advanced paramedic carried out weekly ward rounds for people living in local care homes.

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. For example, 98% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting their GP practice, significantly above the national average of 73%. The survey also showed that 83% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone. Again, above the national average of 57%.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground and first floors. People had access to a stair lift to access rooms on the first floor. An automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service. Parking for people with mobility problems was readily available.

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. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Reasonable adjustments for people were recorded in their records and taken into account when booking appointments, for example, longer appointments, interpreters or specific times of the day. Staff would find an unused clinical room for people who did not wish to sit in the main waiting room. Staff shared examples of reasonable adjustments in place for individuals when they attended the practice.

Staff told us they offered flexibility around appointments for reviews. Telephone reviews were available for people who rarely engaged with or visited the service. Staff knew to contact specific people by text and telephone to remind them of their appointments. Staff described the arrangements in place to follow up people who did not arrive for their appointments. Staff shared examples of working across multidisciplinary teams to meet the physical needs of people with a learning disability. A member of staff had developed an easy read letter to explain the review process for people with a learning disability, in addition to sourcing easy read booklets on a range of subjects, including cervical screening, breast examination, alcohol consumption and exercise.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The service was an Armed Forces veteran friendly accredited practice.

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.