Tower 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 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 Good. At this assessment, the rating has stayed 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.

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 people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Our remote review of clinical records showed people 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. If a person accessing the service needed a private space this was available. We spoke to people and feedback was positive, one example citing the service had supported their son who has a learning disability for wound care and staff were very responsive. We saw the service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the provider had good relationships with local care homes and feedback from these providers was positive. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers. The service worked closely with local pharmacies and had made Pharmacy First referrals to promote quicker treatment for people instead of waiting for an appointment at the service

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs, for example, the service provided health promotion leaflets and materials in the reception area, alongside information about chaperones and opportunities to give feedback. Information to promote the uptake of health screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records. Posters informed people CCTV were in use internally and externally to the service. People’s communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care for example the service had access to language line if needed.

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 service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evidenced. For example, a person using the service had referred to a complaint not being responded to in a timely manner. Learning from this meant all complaints were directed to one email address and received into a single location at the service, preventing them from being lost and ensuring a consistent point of contact.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the National GP Patient Survey data from 2025 and feedback from members of the community, the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, the service 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. For example, the service had level access to both floors of the service. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance. The service was well-equipped with clear opening hours displayed, wheelchair and pushchair access and available accessible parking.

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. 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 service, 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 accessing the service who have a learning disability and/or autism were supported by the service, ensuring people received the same reasonable adjustment for each visit.

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 remote clinical 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. The service supported people at end of life and worked with the palliative care team reviewing people as part of the Gold Standards Framework (GSF). This is a model of good service designed to improve care for individuals nearing the end of their lives.