Ballater 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. At this assessment we found that some of those areas previously regarded as outstanding practice were now embedded throughout the majority of GP practices. Whilst the provider had maintained this good practice, the threshold to achieve an outstanding rating had not been reached. The practice is therefore now rated good for providing responsive services.

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.

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 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.

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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

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. Staff involved in complaints were encouraged to complete a reflective practice to identify areas for improvement.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

National GP Patient Survey data collected between January and March 2025 showed lower than average patient satisfaction when respondents were asked how easy it was to contact the practice by telephone (36.7% of patients responded positively to this question compared to the national average of 52.9%). 63% of patients responded positively when asked about their overall experience of contacting the practice, which was in line with the national average of 69.6%.

In response to these findings, the practice had carried out their own analysis of access. The provider identified barriers to access, implemented actions and measured outcomes. For example, the provider had identified that not all patients had access to or wished to use online forms for appointment requests. Therefore, patients were able to contact the practice by telephone or walk into the practice and request an appointment, these requests would be triaged using the same criteria regardless of how they were requested.

The practice continually reviewed demand and capacity and made changes to staff rotas in an attempt to meet demand. The practice reported that as a result the average call waiting time had reduced.Following our assessment, the results from the 2026 National GP Patient Survey were published. These results showed an improvement in patient satisfaction regarding access. 61% of patients said they found it easy to access the practice by telephone (the national average was 57%). 76% of patients described their experience of contacting the GP practice as good (the national average was 73%).

Clinical rooms were situated on the ground and first floor. There was a lift to the first floor. There were accessible toilets in the building, however these did not have grab rails, a raised toilet seat, or an emergency alarm. The provider had submitted a request for funding to enable them to make the necessary changes to the accessible toilets. Patients who used larger wheelchairs or mobility scooters would be allocated one of the larger clinical rooms for their appointments, as not all clinical rooms were accessible to people using larger mobility aids.

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.

The practice was a Safe Surgery which meant there were processes to ensure anyone could register with the practice and access healthcare, even if they did not have evidence of identity, immigration status or address.

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.

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. Multi-disciplinary team meetings were held regularly where relevant information was shared with other services when necessary.