Corbett 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 the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question a good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and worked in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs.

Care plans reflected patients' physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including needs 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 and making decisions about their care and treatment.

The provider demonstrated a person-centred approach to care for people with learning disabilities and autism. Staff adopted a flexible approach to appointments and reviews to help ensure people could access care in a way which met their individual needs.

Staff took account of patients' individual circumstances, preferences and goals when planning treatment. People with complex health needs were discussed through multidisciplinary team meetings to help ensure care remained coordinated and responsive to changing needs. The provider worked with patients, families and carers, where appropriate, to agree care arrangements and support people to achieve outcomes which were important to them.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider had developed a responsive and flexible model of care based on patient feedback and years of reviewing patient demand. Patients could choose between telephone and face-to-face appointments for most appointment types, and systems were designed to maximise continuity of care wherever possible. Routine appointments were preferentially booked with patients' usual GP and regular audits were undertaken to monitor continuity and patient choice. These demonstrated that 87% of patients were either able to see their preferred GP or that seeing an alternative clinician did not negatively impact their care.

Patients and Patient Participation Group members spoke positively about access and continuity of care. Feedback indicated patients valued being able to see their preferred clinician, and some reported choosing the practice because of its reputation for providing timely access and personalised care.

The provider worked closely with health, care and community organisations to ensure care was coordinated around people's needs. Staff developed strong relationships with healthcare partners, care homes and community groups, helping people access the right support at the right time. This meant people with complex or higher-risk needs received coordinated care. The provider also worked with community organisations to encourage uptake of screening programmes and improve health outcomes within the local population.

Regular reviews helped staff respond to changes in people’s health and wellbeing. Arrangements were in place to promote continuity of care and ensure patients continued to receive support, even when their usual clinician was unavailable.

The provider maintained continuity of care during periods of disruption. During a national outage affecting the practice's electronic patient record system, staff successfully implemented the business continuity plan, maintained services using paper-based systems and subsequently reviewed the incident to identify learning and improvements. Robust arrangements were also in place to manage unexpected staff absence, helping to minimise disruption and ensure patients continued to receive timely care.

The provider monitored continuity and patient choice through regular audits. Results demonstrated most patients were either able to see their preferred GP or felt seeing an alternative clinician did not negatively affect their care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs.

Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard, helping patients to understand and engage with their care and treatment. Patients were informed about how to access their care records and were provided with information to support informed decision-making.

The provider recognised the needs of different groups within the local community and adapted information accordingly. For example, tailored registration information had been developed for Ukrainian refugees to support access to healthcare services and reviews. Staff understood the importance of meeting individual communication needs and took steps to ensure people received information in a way they could understand.

The provider 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.

The provider actively sought feedback from patients through its Patient Participation Group (PPG), surveys, complaints and day-to-day interactions. PPG members told us they felt listened to and valued by the practice. They said staff were open to feedback, provided explanations where changes were not possible and kept patients informed about developments within the service.

We saw evidence patient feedback influenced improvements. For example, the provider had reviewed staff training following concerns raised about patient interactions, simplified telephone messaging in response to patient feedback and was considering further improvements to facilities and communication systems. PPG members told us changes made by the practice had resulted in improvements to patients' experiences.

Complaints and concerns 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. Complaints and feedback were reviewed to identify themes, share learning and support continuous improvement.

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

Robust and responsive appointment triage systems were embedded within the practice, ensuring patients with urgent needs received timely access to appropriate services. Clinical triage was undertaken by both GPs and nurses, enabling patients to be directed promptly to the most suitable clinician and facilitating same-day appointments when required. This was supported by dedicated duty GP and nurse roles, alongside supervisory GP and nurse roles, providing continuous oversight and rapid responses to incoming requests throughout the day.

The provider proactively monitored demand and demonstrated a flexible approach to capacity management. Appointment availability was continually reviewed and adjusted to meet patient need, with additional duty GP sessions introduced during predictably busy periods, such as Monday mornings and following bank holidays. This ensured patients experienced minimal delays in accessing care, even during periods of increased demand.

Patients could access the service through multiple routes, including telephone, online systems and the NHS App. Importantly, the practice actively encouraged patients to telephone the surgery if preferred, reducing barriers for those who were less able to use digital methods. However, the National GP Patient Survey 2026 showed only 35% of people who responded found it easy to contact the practice using their website. This was below the national average of 58%. Leaders and staff were committed to managing patient needs directly and ensured sufficient clinical capacity to respond to all enquiries, meaning patients were never routinely redirected elsewhere for advice or assessment.

Staff consistently assessed and prioritised patients according to clinical need, responding to concerns promptly and effectively. The provider had comprehensive arrangements to identify and support patients who required a particularly responsive service. This included the use of alerts and an index patient system for people with life-limiting conditions and those at increased risk of deterioration. These patients were able to access same-day clinical assessment where appropriate and benefited from continuity of care through named GPs who provided ongoing oversight and coordinated support throughout the week.

The proactive, patient-centred approach adopted by the provider ensured equitable and timely access to care, with systems designed to anticipate demand, reduce barriers to access and deliver responsive support to those with the greatest needs. This resulted in a service which consistently maintained expected standards to meet the needs of its population.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider and to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to care and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to help reduce health inequalities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support people’s experiences and outcomes. This included support for people who were neurodiverse, had learning disabilities, were deaf, military veterans or had mobility needs. The provider had made changes to the environment, including the use of de-stressing equipment and adapted lighting, to better support patients with learning disabilities and autism. Staff had completed a survey regarding sexual harassment to understand staff experiences and identify any areas of concern. This was followed by a staff a awareness training session on sexual harassment, supporting a culture where staff felt safe to raise concerns and understand expected standards of behaviour and available support.

The provider offered a range of ways to access services, including by telephone, in person and online, helping to reduce barriers associated with digital exclusion. Interpreter services, including British Sign Language, were available when required. The provider had processes to ensure people could register with the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Tailored registration information had also been developed to support Ukrainian refugees to access healthcare reviews and local services.

Staff used systems to gather and review feedback from a wide range of people, including those who did not speak English or who had limited access to digital services. The provider and Patient Participation Group also supported people to access and use the NHS App where appropriate.

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.

The provider demonstrated a proactive approach to identifying and supporting people whose health needs may change over time, including those approaching the end of their life. Staff routinely considered whether people may benefit from future care planning and maintained oversight through dedicated registers and regular multidisciplinary meetings. This enabled people’s needs, wishes and preferences to be discussed at an early stage and reviewed as circumstances changed.

Leaders and staff worked closely with hospice teams, community services, care homes and other healthcare professionals to coordinate care and support planning for the future. Patients with palliative and complex needs were discussed regularly through multidisciplinary team meetings, where care plans were reviewed, actions agreed and responsibilities allocated. Patients were prioritised for continuity of care and timely access to support, with identified clinicians maintaining oversight throughout the week.

Records we reviewed showed people were supported to consider and document their preferences for future and end-of-life care, including decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Staff reviewed these decisions regularly and ensured information was shared with relevant services to support coordinated care. The provider took steps to help people remain in their preferred place of care wherever possible and worked with families, carers and advocates to ensure decisions reflected people's wishes and best interests.

The provider supported people through significant life changes, including transitions between home, residential and nursing care settings. Families and carers were actively involved in planning and decision-making, and staff provided ongoing support following bereavement. Leaders maintained oversight of deaths and reviewed learning to continually improve the support provided to patients and their families.