Leander Family 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 75 (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 service told us they kept a list of vulnerable patients which they coded and put alerts onto their system.
We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.
The service told us, they had noticed physiotherapist appointments were in demand, so they increased the amount of physiotherapist appointments they provided.
The national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2025 had 640 surveys sent out and 117 responses were returned which equalled a 18% completion rate. Results showed 89% of participants felt, they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment this was comparable to the local average 92% and national 91%.
 

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 practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.
The practice website was available in over 50 languages to help people have access to information they needed.
 

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 practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.
We reviewed 3 complaints in detail and found the process followed to be satisfactory. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. A complains form was available on the practice website.
 

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The building was purpose built, and all patients were seen on the ground floor. The practice also had access to a wheelchair should any patients require it.
In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.
 

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.
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 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.
 

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.
Staff kept a palliative care register and told us patients were reviewed according to their needs and discussed during practice staff meetings. The service had processes in place to review if preferences for end-of-life care had been in line with patients wishes.