Parkside 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 understood the needs of the people and communities they served and put them at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We looked for evidence people accessed the care and treatment they needed when they needed it.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Good.
At this assessment, the rating has stayed Good.

This is because:

• Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were recorded in line with legislation.

• The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice generally managed complaints in line with the practice's procedure, in a timely way and informed people about what they could do if they were not satisfied with the practice's response.

• Staff understood the diverse health and care needs of patients.

• The practice offered patients continuity of care from staff with specific knowledge.

• The practice made reasonable adjustments to help people access health and care services.

• Feedback from care homes the practice supported was positive.

• The practice offered a range of appointment types with a range of clinicians.

However, feedback from people who had used the service was mixed about their experiences of accessing and using the service, including since the expansion of the practice's 'Total Triage' system.

 

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 findings of the 2025 GP Patient Survey showed fewer people who responded to the survey were positive about their experiences of the practice than the local and national averages. Of the people who responded to the survey:

• 53% responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice, compared with 67% locally and 75% nationally.

• 69% said during their last appointment the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them, compared with 83% locally and 87% nationally.

Feedback from people who had used the service, collected by the practice and CQC, was mixed. Some patients said they had been happy with how the practice had responded to their concern, including the timeliness and detail of the practice's response and that they felt they had received the treatment they felt they needed. However, others said they did not feel the practice had supported them, listened to them to fully assess and understand their concerns nor had addressed their concerns.

 

The practice supported residents living in 2 local care homes. Staff from one of these care homes told us they received support from the practice when needed, mostly by telephone or email. A doctor visited the care home when it was needed between their regular visits to the care home throughout the year. Care home staff told us there was good continuity and consistency of care from the same practice staff, which helped communication, knowledge of each resident and supported residents through familiarity with staff.

The practice was aware of the diverse health and care needs of their patients. Staff told us how matching patients with staff from similar backgrounds or cultures had helped with engagement and communication.

The practice offered patients continuity of care from staff in 'lead roles', for example patients with severe mental illness would generally be supported by the doctor with the mental health 'lead role', patients with learning disability by the doctor who was the 'lead' for learning disabilities, and veterans were generally supported by the doctor with expertise in this area.

 

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), a requirement for all providers of NHS care. The AIS applies to people who use a service, and their carers or parents, who have information or communication needs because of a disability, impairment or sensory loss. For example, there was a hearing loop for people who are deaf or have difficulty hearing and there was a member of staff who could communicate using British Sign Language who could help deaf people.

For patients who did not speak English as their first language, the practice offered longer appointments and the use of a telephone-based interpreter service. Some staff members spoke other languages and could support discussions.

The provider was registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Training records showed all staff had completed training in information governance and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The practice stored confidential and sensitive information safely and securely.

 

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Information about how to give feedback or complain was available, including what people could expect and how to access advocacy services.

People could share their thoughts with the practice by completing an online Feedback Form or the NHS Friends and Family Test.

The practice had a system for recording and responding to complaints.

Although the practice accepted formal complaints only if they were made in writing, practice leaders told us they would attempt to resolve complaints initially by discussing the concern with the person.

The practice had recorded 35 formal complaints in the year leading up to this assessment.

The practice generally managed complaints in line with the practice's Complaints Procedure and in a timely way. The practice responded to most complaints in writing. People were informed about what they could do if they were not satisfied with the practice's response.

The practice also recorded compliments received, and these were shared with staff. The practice had recorded 31 formal compliments in the year leading up to this assessment. Leaders also showed us examples of letters written by patients who had been positive about their experiences of the practice.

 

Patients registered with the practice could access support from an associate physician, clinical pharmacy team, doctors, healthcare assistants, phlebotomists, a physiotherapist, practice nurses, a minor illness nurse, social prescribers and well-being coaches. Other non-clinical staff helped the practice to run effectively, including an administrator, care coordinator, GP assistant, management team, prescription clerk, a team of reception staff, and a secretary.

There was information in the practice and on the practice’s website to support people to understand how to access services. This included information about services provided by the practice, the practice’s opening times, GP extended access services, and where people could get support, treatment and advice when the practice was closed.

There was also information about other NHS and private services such as self-referral to physiotherapy.

The practice offered online services to help people manage their health, for example to request an appointment or administrative task, ask about test results, or to order repeat prescriptions.

The practice directed people to use the online service for any appointment requests. The online service was open between 7.30am and 6.30pm on days the practice was open.

Patients who needed help to complete the online form could telephone or visit the practice, where a member of the patient navigation team could help them complete a form. The practice opened telephone lines at 8am, until 6.30pm on days the practice was open.

This 'Total Triage' system meant all clinical requests were received via a form, and were reviewed and prioritised by a 'duty doctor', who sat with the reception staff.

The practice offered a range of appointment types including face-to-face, telephone, online and home visits.

Appointments were offered between 7.30am and 7pm on days the practice was open.

At the time of this assessment, same day, or urgent, appointments were available with the duty doctor, minor illness nurse and associate physician.

Although patients could book an appointment with a doctor or nurse in advance, the provider told us that it was a challenge offering pre-bookable appointments with a GP as an option alongside the 'Total Triage' system, in which requests were generally dealt with on the same day.

At the time of this assessment, routine, pre-bookable appointments with members of the nursing team were available within a week, and with a doctor just over 2 weeks.

Patients could ask for repeat prescriptions online or by filling out a ‘request form’ and posting it into the ‘prescription box’ at the practice or by posting it to the practice. The practice did not accept repeat prescription requests by email or from pharmacies. The practice also did not take repeat prescription requests over the telephone, in line with national recommendations.

The results of the 2025 GP Patient Survey, which was carried out before the expansion of the Total Triage system, showed fewer people were positive about access at the practice than the local and national averages. Of the people who responded to the survey:

• 32% were positive about how easy it was to contact the practice by telephone, compared with 53% nationally and 40% in the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes (BLMK) area.

• 48% responded positively about their overall experiences of contacting the practice, compared with 70% nationally and 60% in the BLMK area.

Feedback from people who had used the service, collected by the practice, other organisations and CQC since February 2026, was mixed. Some patients said they had been happy with the Total Triage system, saying they had received a prompt response that met their needs in a convenient way. However, others felt the system was not flexible enough, they were inappropriately signposted to other services when no appointments at the practice were available, and felt "forgotten about" when they did not receive a response to their query or kept informed.

Although the practice's website informed patients a request may be rejected or the patient may be asked to resubmit the form, for example if not all questions were answered, some people who used the service told us requests were sometimes closed without any apparent action and practice staff had not offered them help to fill in the form.

The practice had signed up to the ‘NHS Transitioning to Modern General Practice Programme’. The provider told us about various changes they had made. The provider told us these had been effective in reducing the number of ‘avoidable appointments’ from 27% to 5%, making more appointments available for those who needed them.

 

About 58% of patients registered with the practice had signed up to online services.

People who were or might be vulnerable could register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as people who were homeless, Travellers, and refugees. One of the GPs at the practice had an interest in supporting homeless people and had worked with local charities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The practice coordinated care for patients, including those with a learning disability or autism, or a severe mental illness. A specific member of staff contacted patients and their carers to identify reasonable adjustments that would help the patient access the service, such as allowing extra time for an appointment, organising care and treatment to minimise the number of times the patient needed to attend the practice, and making sure a quieter environment was available for the person. This member of staff also contacted people with severe mental illness to understand their current circumstances when their yearly review was due. Some practice staff had completed training in 'Mental Health First Aid' to help them support patients.

The practice building was suitable for wheelchair users or those with scooters or prams. There was accessible parking, level access, and clinical rooms were on the ground floor.

There were toilet facilities suitable for those with disabilities and baby changing facilities.

There was a variety of seating in the waiting area, including chairs which were designed to be safe for larger patients to use.

Training records showed all staff had completed up-to-date training in Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Human Rights.

 

Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions we looked at during this assessment had been recorded in line with legislation.