Belmont Health Centre Also known as Dr J Wijeratne & Parnters

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 in July 2018, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Our review of the care plans for people living with mental health conditions during the clinical searches showed they were adequate. However, care records reviewed on site for people with learning disability and autistic people lacked adequate information to support them and their health needs.

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. The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. There were care coordinators to support the patients in navigating the services they needed.

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 programmes was available in a range of languages including British sign language. Information on sepsis awareness, chaperoning and how to make complaints was not readily visible in the patient waiting area but chaperone and sepsis posters were available in the clinical rooms. Following the site visit, the service shared evidence of action taken to make needed information more visible in the patient waiting area.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support as evidenced by the feedback from some of the patients we spoke to during the site visit. However, there was a feedback box at the reception. The service did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. A complaints log was maintained but not all complaints were always managed in line with established guidance. Learning from complaints was not always evident or recorded. There was no evidence of any changes made to service delivery as a result of patient feedback; however, changes made as a result of complaints they received were shared with CQC.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The National GP Patient Survey 2025 results showed that 71% of the respondents had good overall experience of contacting the service which was in line with the local (71%) and national (70%) averages. Patients received care and treatment in clinic rooms located on the ground floor of the premises.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience and outcomes, however there was no consistency in tailoring their care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service to CQC was mainly positive with a few negative feedback.

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 life. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for end-of-life care including cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the information was shared with other services when necessary.