Earlsfield 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 2026 National GP Patient Survey. For example, 85% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to the national and local averages of 77% and 81%. This 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. The practice offered a variety of appointment types and times to improve patient access and meet differing clinical needs. Appointments were available throughout weekday mornings and afternoons and were delivered by a multidisciplinary team that included GPs, nurses, healthcare assistants, pharmacists, and physician associates. In addition, patients were able to access weekend appointments through both the practice and Primary Care Network (PCN) services.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. This included improvements to the reception process, which made it easier for patients to access the service.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and step-free access was available via the main entrance, to ensure ease of access to the service.

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. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. 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 hosted a monthly specialist paediatric outreach clinic, improving access to specialist children's services for local families and reducing the need to travel to hospital appointments. Patients were also discussed at multidisciplinary team meetings held twice monthly. During our assessment, a patient described the paediatric outreach service as invaluable for their family. They told us that being able to access specialist care locally had improved their experience and made it easier for their child to receive timely support. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. The practice had processes in place to identify military veterans and record their status within their medical records. Veterans were signposted to appropriate NHS and specialist support services where required, helping to ensure their healthcare needs were recognised and appropriately supported. Patients who required interpreter services, communication support, or other reasonable adjustments were appropriately coded within the electronic patient record software. This ensured that relevant information was visible to all staff at the point of contact, enabling the practice to provide personalised support and make suitable arrangements, including longer appointments where appropriate.

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.