Dr James Lawrie

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 most recent 2026 GP Patient Survey shows 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, 82% of respondents reported a good overall experience of contacting the practice, against 73% nationally. 75% found it easy to contact by phone compared to 57% nationally, and 73% found it easy via the website compared to 58% nationally. Reception and administrative helpfulness was rated positively by 88% compared to 85% nationally, and 91% knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice compared to 84% nationally.

We were told that the service supplemented standard hours with several targeted extensions to access. For example, Saturday PCN clinic covered routine care, long-term condition reviews and immunisations. They described home visits for housebound patients, which they reviewed at every clinical meeting, and they ran a Saturday in-house phlebotomy service.

We were told that reception staff supported patients who could not use online forms by completing forms on their behalf. A dedicated staff member was available in person for this support. Meeting minutes reflected the Patient Participation Group promoting digital inclusion through The Renewal Programme Community Hub, and 2 staff members were NHS App Ambassadors who supported patients with using the App.

We reviewed the services reasonable adjustments policy in place and staff completed relevant training, such as Mental Capacity Act and learning-disability and autism-specific awareness.

Clinical rooms were available on the ground floor. We observed an automatic entrance door and spacious areas that supported accessibility.

However, for a separate measure, 80% of respondents who knew what the next step would be knew this within 2 days, compared with 93% nationally. The provider could not demonstrate that it had analysed or taken action in response to this result.

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.

Practice data showed that learning disability health check completion increased from 73% to 91% over 4 months following weekly monitoring and home visits for people unable to attend. Patients with serious mental illness were flagged on the clinical system for opportunistic physical health checks, with a long-term condition coordinator supporting engagement.

Staff told us they used professional interpreters where needed. Examples were given where using independent interpreters had resulted in safeguarding referral. Staff also escalated care appropriately before proceeding where capacity was in doubt.

We reviewed Patient Participation Group records and observed efforts made to encourage wider involvement through text invitations, electronic notices and direct invitations. Digital inclusion support was promoted.

We were told that leaders worked with local services, including voluntary organisations, through social prescribing, the Primary Care Network and the Integrated Care Board. However, this was not yet part of a targeted strategy to address identified local health inequalities.

Training records reviewed showed that the equality, diversity and inclusion training was mandatory for all staff and completed for a random sample of staff on the day of the assessment. This supported staff to recognise protected characteristics and tailor care and communication to individual needs.

We were told that people within geographic eligibility for registration were all welcomed to register, without exceptions. Staff said people who could not register were given information about alternative services.

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.