The Rosewood 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 on 30 November 2023, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement because patient satisfaction with access to services was low. At this assessment, the rating has changed and the practice is now rated as Good because patient satisfaction with access had improved and was in line with local and national averages, and there was clear evidence of work undertaken by the practice to support and sustain these improvements.

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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, working in partnership with them—and, where appropriate, their carers—to decide how best to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. Care plans reflected patients’ physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of a sample of care plans showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care, with carers included in these discussions where appropriate.

Patients were also given time to reflect on and digest any changes to their care or treatment. They were provided with relevant information, such as leaflets and website links, to help them better understand their options and condition. Where appropriate, follow-up appointments were offered so patients could discuss their care further at a later date. In addition, patients could be referred to social prescribers when suitable, who supported them with the social aspects of care by providing guidance and signposting to relevant community services.

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 and had established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice had tailored its services to respond to the needs of its local community. For example, it had developed relationships with community groups to help promote the uptake of screening programmes and improve engagement with preventative health services. The practice also used a wider determinants of health questionnaire with patients. This helped staff to identify non-clinical factors that may affect a person’s health and wellbeing, such as housing, social isolation, employment, or access to support, enabling the practice to provide more holistic care and signpost patients to appropriate services where needed.

The practice recognised that it had a high proportion of older patients and had adapted some of its services to better support this group. For example, it provided in-house minor surgery clinics, which included procedures such as treatment for ingrown toenails. This helped improve access and reduced the need for patients to travel elsewhere for relatively straightforward procedures. We saw positive feedback from patients regarding the minor surgery service, and the practice carried out routine clinical audits to monitor the quality and effectiveness of these procedures.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages to support the diverse needs of the patient population.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language, to support effective communication with patients. In addition, information about cervical cytology and the importance of attending screening was available through educational videos produced in 14 different languages, including sign language. An easy-to-understand guide was also available to help patients better understand the purpose of screening and what the test involves.

All reception staff had completed care navigation training, which supported them to direct patients to the most appropriate service or clinician for their needs. Staff also had access to clear red flag guidance to help them identify symptoms or situations that required urgent clinical attention.

Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard, ensuring patients with communication or accessibility needs could receive information in a way they could understand. Patients were also informed about how they could access their care records.

Leaders made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns, or make complaints about their care, treatment and support. Patients were involved in decisions about their care and were informed when changes had been made as a result of feedback. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey reflected positive patient experiences in relation to communication and involvement in care. For example, 85% of respondents stated that the last healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their most recent general practice appointment, and 91% reported they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

We saw that complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy, and there was evidence that learning from complaints took place. The practice held complaints meetings every 6 weeks where feedback and learning were shared with staff, helping to ensure that concerns raised by patients were discussed and used to inform improvements. Staff we spoke with were able to describe changes that had been made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The practice also had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) which met regularly and provided a forum for patients to share views and contribute to service development. However, we noted that minutes from these meetings were not uploaded to the practice website and the records available did not contain sufficient detail for people who had not attended the meetings to fully understand the discussions that had taken place.

Leaders ensured that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when required. People were able to access the service in ways that suited their needs, including online, in person and by telephone. The practice premises also included a disabled toilet to support patients with accessibility needs.

The practice reviewed patient feedback and national survey data to help improve access to services. The 2025 National GP Patient Survey received responses from 129 patients. Of these, 49% reported that they found it easy to get through to the practice by telephone, which was comparable to both the local and national averages. In addition, 55% of respondents said they were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment, which was also in line with local and national results.

The practice also carried out its own internal patient survey. Results showed that 44% of respondents rated their ability to get through to the practice by telephone as excellent or good, while 30% rated it as fair. In response to the National GP Patient Survey findings, the practice reviewed and updated its appointment system. GP appointments could now be pre-booked up to 2 weeks in advance. Previously, appointments could be booked further in advance; however, the practice found that this led to a higher number of patients not attending their appointments (DNAs).

To further monitor access and demand, the practice reviewed monthly telephony performance reports from the Surgery Connect system. Between November 2025 and January 2026, the practice received approximately 8,900 to 9,700 inbound calls each month, with between 6,100 and 6,800 of these calls answered. Average queue times ranged from around 3 to 5 minutes. The practice also used a callback facility, with approximately 700 to 900 requests made per month, the majority of which were successfully completed. Outbound connection rates were approximately 88% to 90.5%, indicating that most outbound call attempts resulted in successful contact with patients. A proportion of calls, approximately 26% to 27%, were abandoned before being answered. The practice monitored these figures alongside queue times and callback usage to better understand peak demand and support ongoing improvements to patient access.

The practice had also made changes to improve awareness and use of enhanced access appointments. These appointments, which were delivered outside of the practice location, could now be booked directly by practice staff. This enabled staff to better explain the availability of these appointments to patients and encourage their use, helping to increase overall access to care.

The practice had also responded to feedback from the community by adapting services for specific patient groups. For example, extended appointments were offered for people with a learning disability to allow additional time and support during consultations.

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. This included recognising the needs of patients with caring responsibilities, with carers prioritised for appointments where appropriate to allow flexibility around their caring roles. The practice also made adjustments to meet the additional needs of patients with autism, helping to ensure their care was accessible and supportive. In addition, children under the age of 5 were offered same-day appointments where clinically appropriate to ensure timely access to care.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider and to the CQC, was positive. Two patients had shared positive feedback about their experience of the practice through the “Tell us about your care” feature on the CQC website. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey also reflected generally positive experiences. For example, 72% of respondents described their overall experience of the GP practice as good, compared with 75% nationally. In addition, 95% of respondents reported that they knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting their GP practice.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. All staff had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training to support an inclusive approach to care. 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 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 in place to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness and members of the Traveller community. The practice also displayed healthcare promotion materials and posters in multiple languages to support understanding among its diverse patient population. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or who did not have access to the internet, and the practice also carried out regular internal surveys with both patients and staff to help identify opportunities for improvement.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Our review of a sample of care plans showed that people were supported to consider and document their wishes for end-of-life care, including decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary to support coordinated care.

Feedback from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey also indicated that patients felt supported in managing their health and ongoing conditions. For example, 70% of respondents stated they had received enough support from local services or organisations in the previous 12 months to help them manage their long-term conditions or illnesses, which was comparable to the national average of 69%.

Patients also had access to a social prescriber through the practice. This professional supported them by helping them access community services and non-clinical support, such as groups, activities or practical assistance, which could improve wellbeing and help people better manage the wider social factors affecting their health.