Thornton Heath 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

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.
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 service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
 

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 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.
Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those 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 for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.
Results from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 showed 84% of participants felt, they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment compared to the local 92% and national 90%.
The practice had undertaken an action plan in relation to the National GP Patient Survey, this included auditing the phone system, increasing call handing staff at peak times, and promoting online booking.
 

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, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.
The practice provided care for those in care homes, the same GP would attend the care home to build a better relationship with the patients and truly understand their needs.
The National GP patient Survey results highlighted 66% of respondents felt they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses compared to the local 70% and national average at 69%.
 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. A hearing loop was present. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.
Data from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 showed that 57% of patients found it easy to contact the service using their website compared to the local 58% and national 51%.
On the practice website we saw a fact sheet explaining the role of the health service, how to register, which was provided for non-English speakers in other languages.
The practice website could also be translated into different languages.
 

The service 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 staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.
We reviewed 3 complaints in detail and found the process to be satisfactory. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy and had been reviewed in February 2026.
NHS Friends and Family Test feedback was regularly reviewed. The National GP Patient Survey data reported that 79% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, compared to the local 89% and national 87%.
 

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.
The practice had things in place to ensure patients could access the service. This included a hearing loop and wheelchair accessible premises. They had access to interpreting services and could provide information in large print for patients if required.
The National GP Patient Survey data reported that 43% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone compared to the local 61% and national 53%. 57% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by their website compared to the local 58% and national 51%. 46% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by the NHS app compared to the local 54% and national 49%. 76% of respondents found the receptionists helpful compared to the local 85% and national 83%.
The practice had not undertaken its own patient survey, they informed us they regularly reviewed the NHS Friends and Family Test, and had undertaken an action plan based on this, as well as completing an action plan for the National GP Patient Survey.
Since March 2026 the practice had changed their appointment booking system and the practice was no longer accepting walk in requests for booking appointments at reception. To book an appointment, patients had to complete an online form or call the practice.
 

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.
We saw that all staff clinical and non-clinical had completed the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism.
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. 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.