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

This was a focused assessment, which meant we did not assess all quality statements. Our rating is determined from the findings of both this assessment and our previous assessment. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as outstanding, and this remains unchanged due to the focused nature of this assessment. However, updated quality statement scores have been issued where relevant.

This service scored 96 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service had maintained high levels of satisfaction in relation to access since the previous assessment in 2020. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed the service performed significantly above national averages for access indicators. For example, 88.9% of respondents reported it was easy to contact the service by phone, compared with a national average of 52.9%. Additionally, 88% of respondents rated their overall experience of contacting the GP service positively, compared with a national average of 69.6%. This demonstrated that people were able to access the service when needed and in a manner that met their preferences.

People could access the service in person, by telephone or online via the service website or NHS app. Due to the demographic profile of the people registered at the service and its person‑centred approach, leaders and staff actively promoted both telephone and in person access. Receptionists followed up appointment requests, contacting people the next day to arrange suitable appointments rather than asking them to call back. This was usually done by telephone, although text messages were used where appropriate, for example with teachers. This approach significantly reduced telephone queues, and feedback was positive from people who used the service and staff. Arrangements ensured access remained equitable and responsive to individual needs.

Early morning appointments were available on 3 weekdays, along with evening telephone appointments on 1 weekday. In addition, telephone appointments with a Clinical Pharmacist and Nurse Practitioner were available on alternate weeks, in line with their contract. A Paramedic conducted weekly visits to people who lived in a care home, alongside monthly GP reviews, to assess and manage people’s care. Urgent appointments were also provided and a care home representative reported positive experiences with both urgent and routine access.

Leaders regularly reviewed appointment data to maximise efficiency and drive continuous improvement. For example, the service proactively responded to increased demand during the Easter and Christmas holidays by reserving some urgent appointment slots for teachers. Capacity had also been strengthened by increasing clinical hours, for example from the Emergency Care Practitioner.

The premises were accessible, with an automatic entrance door, and treatment rooms located on the ground floor. Interpreter services were available for those people whose first language was not English, and for people with a hearing impairment. A hearing loop was also available.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, the service and the Patient Participation Group (PPG) worked collaboratively to share newsletters in a range of local parish magazines, ensuring information reached people who did not have internet access or who did not visit the service regularly. This included arrangements to access appointments.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experiences. For example, they provided an on-site blood-taking service which enabled people to have their blood tests carried out at the service rather than having to travel elsewhere.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, during influenza clinics, vaccinating clinicians would administer vaccinations to people with mobility needs in their car. During our onsite visits, we observed staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including temporary residents.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not have access to the internet. For example, the PPG obtained feedback during flu clinics and through informal conversations with people who used the service. Changes were made, for example, the number of disabled car parking spaces had increased from 2 to 3 at the branch site.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.