Albion Health 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.

We rated this key question as good. People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

This service scored 71 (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 mostly made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. This was demonstrated by the GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 which had 110 responses, 90% of patients had definitely or to some extent confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to. Eighty-two percent stated their needs were definitely or to some extent met. The practice results were in line with local and national averages. The practice had reviewed the patients’ feedback and looked at ways of making improvements, such as recruiting more reception staff. Longer appointments were available for patients with complex needs and home visit requests were reviewed and carried out daily.

The service worked in partnership with people, to decide 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. The practice made adjustments when patients found it difficult to access services. For example, if patients were unable to complete the online consultation process in order to book an appointment, practice staff would assist them in booking an appointment.

The leaders explained they worked with multidisciplinary teams and other partners to enable co-ordinated patient care. To better understand their population's needs, the service team attended monthly PCN meetings. Leaders told us that staff had completed customer service training which emphasised patient centred care.

People received care and treatment that considered their diverse health and social care needs. 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. The service was actively involved in their local primary network, where they worked with other services to improve local health inequalities. Staff told us the service was taking part in a PCN led screening pilot to identify people with high risk forlivercancer and improve early detection and referral to liver cancer services.

The service attended both anticipatory and current multidisciplinary meetings regularly to review and improve patient care. Patients could book appointments online, in person or by telephone, longer appointments were offered to those with more complex needs. People in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the service, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers. Patients could be referred to the community mental health nurse, who worked one day a week at the service.The practice had a diverse workforce. This helped staff to understand patients’ needs better and deliver more effective and responsive care. Leaders told us the workforce was stable, and this ensured better continuity of care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There were policies and procedures for staff to follow to ensure people had information that was tailored to individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, interpreting and translation for people who don’t speak English as a first language and for deaf people who use British Sign Language. We saw information about interpreter services was visible in the reception area. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard and staff had completed training.

Data from the GP Patient survey 2024 showed that only 29% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using their website. This was lower than the local 44% and national average of 48%.The service had worked to improve the accessibility features and translation options on the practice website. Staff had access to the data protection and accessible information policies online.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The national GP patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 127 responses. This found 76% of patients stated the healthcare professional was fairly or very good at listening to them during their last general service appointment

Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. For example, the provider did not always work with people to understand and manage risks enabling them to make informed decisions. Patients were not always informed of any adverse effects of the medicine they were taking.

We found people had different options to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the national patient survey. When a patient submitted an online consultation through the eConsult website, they could opt in to taking a short survey. Patients could also contact the patient participation group (PPG) and there was a suggestions box. However, all surveys were in English. Throughout the assessment staff told us that many patients did not speak English and required information in a different language.

The practice monitored patient feedback that was left on NHS websites. The provider had formed an action plan to improve patient satisfaction following the national GP patient survey. They provided evidence of how they used FFT data and eConsult survey responses to drive improvement. For example, following feedback from patients about their eConsult experience, the service made changes to ensure all patients who submit an online consultation are contacted on the same working day.

Leaders told us that people’s complaints were reviewed, responded to and learning shared with colleagues. We reviewed 2 complaints in detail and found the process to be satisfactory. However, we identified that written responses to complaints made verbally had not always been sent, to ensure that even when complaints were resolved verbally, a written response would still be issued. This was not specified in the practice complaints policy. The complaints policy was available on the practice website and included information for patients about how to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. The practice had an active PPG who had supported the practice in implementing improvements. From meeting minutes, we viewed we saw that PPG members had opportunities to raise questions, and they received a response from practice staff.Since our assessment, the provider told us they had launched their own in house patient survey at the beginning of July 2025, for patients to feedback about their experience of accessing the service.

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, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

Data from a range of sources including the 2024 National GP patient survey and feedback to CQC showed that patient feedback was mixed about accessing the service. Data from the 2024 National GP patient survey showed that of those people that responded:

• 22%found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone. This was lower than local(48%) and national (50%) averages.
• 29%found it easy to contact this GP practice using their website. This was lower than local (44%) and National (48%) averages.

We asked the provider to place a link on their website to the Give Feedback on Care process so we could hear of patients’ experiences of care. We received 22 pieces of feedback. There were 19 positive comments from patients about helpful and caring staff. There were 2 pieces of negative feedback about access with 2 patients finding it difficult to make an appointment at the practice.

Leaders told us of the actions they had taken to improve access for patients. For example, introducing a duty doctor system. The practice had also updated their telephone system and introduced an online consultation process.

We reviewed the appointment system and found there was good availability of appointments. Patients could access appointments either at the practice or through extended access between 8am -8pm Monday to Friday and 9am-5pm on a Saturday. Patients could make an appointment by phone, through the text message system or in person.

Staff had access to telephone call data which they reviewed weekly. This meant they could review capacity and demand more effectively and they could amend capacity over the week to deal with busier periods.

Leaders had reviewed their processes around appointments and provided training to all staff on how to support patients with additional needs and those requiring reasonable adjustments including autistic patients and people with a learning disability.

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. 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 reviewed feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

The service displayed multilingual posters and leaflets to raise awareness of health issues like Sepsis and hand hygiene. However, all in-house surveys we saw were in English, and there was no evidence that vulnerable groups' views were actively sought. Leaders told us multilingual staff engaged with carers and family members to gather feedback, and large-print surveys were used to support accessibility.

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. Staff kept a palliative care register and told us patients were reviewed according to their needs and discussed during practice meetings. The practice had processes in place to review if care and preferences had been met in line with patients wishes. We did not collect patient experience feedback that related to planning for the future.