Hucclecote 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 remains the same.

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 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.

People were able to request to see a named clinician and this request was met when possible. This meant people experienced continuity of care and were listened to by a clinician who knew their medical history and their care and treatment needs.

Our 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.

Feedback from people who responded directly to CQC indicated they were well listened to and felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment and in planning for their future needs. This was supported by the data from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. For example, 92% of responders said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was in line with the national average of 91% and local average of 93%.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, they actively participated in a frailty team provided by the local primary care network (PCN) (a group of local GP services that work together to deliver a wider range of services to the local population than might not be possible within an individual service). The service could refer people to a frailty nurse to support their independence and live well in the community. The team is made up of a variety of staff from all services within the PCN. They reviewed people at risk of falls with the aim to reduce this risk, support people to remain in their homes and to reduce hospital admissions.

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

The service displayed posters and provided information leaflets on a range of topics for people to access. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The service had a hearing loop, but it was broken at the time of the onsite visit. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

People 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 service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, following a complaint, staff were asked to carefully review discharge instructions and if they were not clear, they were to request further information from secondary care. This update was shared during a clinical governance team meeting.

There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who the service liaised with on a regular basis. Meetings were attended by representatives from the service. This gave the service an opportunity to share information with the PPG and gave a platform for the PPG to provide feedback from the perspective of people who use 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 online. For example, they had added a display in the waiting room to support people with online access.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

A ramp and automatic door allowed touch and step-free access to enter the building and treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. There was a second door to access the service which was not automatic. However, staff who worked opposite this second door were able to see if there were any issues with opening the second door and were on hand to assist if required.

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 service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service.

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. However, we found some people’s records indicated they had made a plan for the future but this documentation was missing from their record. We viewed 5 records and found although people had been coded as making a decision about resuscitation, forms were missing for 3 people and therefore there was no further information about treatment escalation and future planning. We discussed this with the service who evidenced they were aware of shortfalls in this area and were in the process of reviewing systems and processes to ensure these decisions were appropriate, evidenced and reviewed when necessary.