Central Medical 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.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

Overall care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. 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.

Results from the national GP survey 2025 showed 81% of participants said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment this was slightly below the local of 87% and national 86%.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language and online translation services.

Adjustments were made when patients found it difficult to access services. For example, if patients were unable to complete the online triage process in order to book an appointment, practice staff would assist them in booking an appointment.

One of the partners set up cooking sessions for patients with a learning disability in collaboration with other local organisations with a focus on diabetes and healthy eating, these sessions had stopped at the time of the inspection, the practice aimed to restart these again this Autumn.

The service had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We received 31 positive commentsvia the Give Feedback on Careform, with patients expressing high levels of satisfaction with the care provided. Many highlighted the compassion shown by doctors, particularly in supporting decision-making throughout their treatment journey.

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. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice informed us they had a particularly high prevalence of diabetes at around 12% of the registered population. As a result, they collaborated with a local community services dietician to co-create a recipe book in Tamil and English, led by the GP fellow, supporting culturally appropriate dietary advice. At the time of the inspection the practice was in discussion with a diabetic charity as to whether this was something they may be able to endorse.

The practice was an Armed Forces veteran friendly accredited GP practice; this meant they had a dedicated clinician who had specialist knowledge of military related health conditions and veteran specific health services.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Data from the GP Patient survey 2025 showed that 29% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using their website. This was below the local 58% and national average of 51%.The practice was aware of this and attributed the lower score to the former online tool that patients were using which asked lots of questions and was difficult to use. The practice had since updated to using eConsult and had received positive feedback from patients for example, patients feedback they were finding it easier and quicker than the previous online tool.

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 practice developed a how to contact us poster which was recently sent to all of their patients, this was an idea generated by the PPG the practice were anticipating it would encourage use of eConsult.

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.

The practice informed us they had a multi-cultural team with a number of clinical and non-clinical team members being able to speak other languages. Although formal translation services were available, the lead GP noted that having multilingual skills within the team enabled them to support patients more effectively and deliver culturally sensitive, appropriate care.

We saw evidence of learning from complaints to drive continuous improvement. The practice had received 6 complaints in the last 12 months. We reviewed 2 complaints in detail and found they had been satisfactorily responded to. We saw a comprehensive complaints log and a complaints policy that had been reviewed in November 2023 and had a 2-year cycle review date.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice had things in place to ensure patients could access the service. This included a hearing loop and wheelchair accessible premises on the ground floor only. They had access to interpreting services and could provide information in large print for patients if required. Leaders informed us of the diverse cultural team they had that could speak a variety of different languages, and a list they kept in reception of all the different languages staff spoke.

The most recent GP Patient Survey data, from April 2025, showed 39% of patients found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, which was lower than the local average 61% and national average of 53%. The practice was aware of the lower scores in relation to local averages. We saw an action plan where the practice had reviewed the most recent national patient survey results. To address and improve the lower scores the practice intended on auditing the phone call activity, sending out information to patients about various ways in which they could contact the practice, and continue to engage with the PPG. The practice had also undertaken their own patient survey, they reviewed the results and devised an action plan to address areas for improvement.

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.

The practice worked closely with the PPG and received feedback that patient access had improved as a result of the updated telephone system which now had a callback functionality, so patients did not have to wait on the phone.

The practice had adopted a new online consultation tool eConsult in June 2025 on the basis of patient feedback. This had been well received so far.

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.

We saw that all staff (clinical and non-clinical) had completed the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism. Annual health checks were offered to all patients with a learning disability and autism, extra time such as double appointments were offered.

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 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 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.

We reviewed 3 Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) records and found decisions were appropriate and were made in line with relevant legislation.

One of the GP partners was involved in a frailty project where housebound patients were visited. The visit involved a comprehensive care plan looking at maintaining independence, improve quality of life and reduce risk of hospital admission.

Face to face dementia reviews were undertaken in longer appointment slots allowing for a holistic review and an opportunity for advanced care planning.