Loxwood 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 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.

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. The results 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. For example, 88% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and there was an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service. We observed that people with pushchairs or in wheelchairs were readily able to access the premises.

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.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. The practice had a rural catchment area and hosted a range of services to reduce the need for people to have to travel to health services. For example, at the time of this assessment, the service was hosting a specialist mental health worker; a diabetic eye screening service; dermatology community photography and had an onsite dispensary. The service had a relatively large older population living independently with frailty and/or long-term conditions. The service prioritised continuity of a GP for this group of patients depending on urgency as an explicit element of the appointment triage process. The GPs told us they considered continuity an important factor in improving people’s quality of care and outcomes in more complex cases.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted their approach to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. People with learning disabilities were triaged for appointments referencing their recorded needs and preferences. A nurse led on completing annual health checks for people with learning disability and used this review to update their care plans with them and their carers.

A care coordinator maintained a ‘dementia corner’ in the waiting room with a range of information resources. They had recently shared bottles from a local voluntary group’s ‘Message in a bottle scheme’. (The bottle is used to store important medical information safely in the person’s fridge. Attending emergency services check the fridge when a person is unable to speak for themselves.)

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. 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. There was written information displayed in the waiting areas encouraging people with hearing difficulties to discuss any adjustments to support their access and care.

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.