Moorfield House Surgery

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. Leaders used people’s feedback and other evidence to improve access, including for those more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing care.

The service provided a range of appointment options, including urgent, routine and home visits. Patients were able to access appointments in different ways, including by telephone and online. The need for home visits was triaged, and visits were carried out where clinically appropriate. The service also provided care and support to patients living in three care homes and one dementia unit.

Staff were trained in care navigation and used systems to assess and triage requests for appointments, supported by guidance and processes to ensure safe decision-making. The service considered equality and human rights requirements, including making reasonable adjustments and supporting patients with protected characteristics.

Both premises were accessible to patients. At one site, services were delivered across 2 floors; however, arrangements were in place to ensure patients who were unable to use stairs could be seen on the ground floor. At the other site, services were delivered from the first floor.

The results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey indicated that patients were satisfied with access to the service. For example, 62% of patients reported they found it easy to contact the service by telephone, compared with a national average of 53%.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were more likely to experience inequality in access, experience or outcomes, and tailored care, support and treatment in response. They used a range of information sources, including patient feedback, complaints and performance data, to understand people’s experiences and identify areas for improvement. Overall, feedback from people using the service was positive.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that 98% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment, compared with a national average of 93%. The service performed above national averages across indicators relating to overall patient experience.

Systems were in place to capture, review and respond to patient feedback, and complaints were managed in line with recognised guidance, with learning identified and shared where appropriate.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of delivering inclusive and person-centred care. They described how they made reasonable adjustments for patients where needed, including offering longer appointments and adapting communication methods. Leaders and staff were proactive in identifying and addressing barriers that could impact patient experience, particularly for those with additional needs or those from vulnerable groups.

The service had processes in place to monitor outcomes and acted on information to improve services. Leaders reviewed trends and used this intelligence to support continuous improvement, with a focus on reducing inequalities and improving patient experience across the population.

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.