Chapelthorpe 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. People were involved in decisions about their care. The practice provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the practice took it seriously and acted on it. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. Following 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 practice 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.

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.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) confirmed that 93% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them (national average 87%).

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.

The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. Leaders told us how the practice had adjusted services to support asylum seekers residing in a local hotel. This included providing double appointments, supporting patients to travel safely back to the hotel following appointments and working with staff at the hotel to reduce the number of failed to attend appointments.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. The practice invited feedback from patients (or their carers) regarding any reasonable adjustments required via a form on the practice’s website. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) demonstrated that 99% of respondents knew what the next step would be within 2 days of contacting their GP practice (national 93%).

The practice 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 leaders were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

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

The practice had adopted a GP led total triage model which could be accessed online or with support by staff members via telephone and at reception. This model had been streamlined in consultation with staff and patients.

Feedback we received from staff and patients was positive about the appointment system. Many patients referred to it as excellent and efficient.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) confirmed that 77% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using their website (national average 51%).

Patients could access same day or routine appointments bookable up to 2 weeks in advance. A variety of appointments were available to patients including face to face, telephone and home visits.

In addition, patients could access evening and weekend appointments with a range of healthcare professionals within the locality.

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. For example, support for patients with digital exclusion, disabilities and language barriers. Patients could access translation services via the practice and written communication was used for accessibility.

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.