Ringmead Medical Group

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

During the assessment we reviewed evidence remotely, spoke with staff, completed remote clinical searches of the practice’s clinical system and undertook observations while on site. We also reviewed feedback provided to CQC by people that had used the service. We found the following:

The complaints process had improved and the provider now responded to the entire complaint and identified learning which was shared throughout the practice.

Feedback from the Patient Participation Group was that the practice listened to concerns and provided open and transparent responses.

Results of the GP Patient Survey indicated the practice was below the national averages for patients’ experiences when contacting the practice overall and by telephone. The practice was aware of the results and had made changes designed to improve patient experience. However, these changes were recent and so it was too early to assess their impact.

The provider used data to understand the practices’ population and to project potential future demand. The service used this information to inform decisions about planning and capacity and the delivery of services. This included staffing levels and the balance of appointment types.

We received patient feedback that raised concerns about patients facing difficulties accessing care due to the increased use of technology. We found the practice was aware of the potential risk of inequalities and these difficulties confirmed patients could access services online, in person and via telephone and would be supported if they had specific needs.

The practice supported patients and their families during end of life care by helping patients to record their wishes and offered support to bereaved families.

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.

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.

The provider had improved its complaints management process since our last assessment. We found complaints were monitored by a dedicated member of the patient services team. When received, complaints were acknowledged by the practice and allocated to an appropriate member of the practice for investigation. This included clinical and non-clinical members of staff. Progress of investigations was monitored and the leadership team were routinely provided updates about the status of ongoing complaints. The management team also monitored this process to ensure compliance with the practice policy. Complaints were categorised by theme so the practice could complete analysis of themes and learning from the investigation was shared at practice meetings.

Complaints could be made in person, in writing or via the telephone, however a small number of patients fedback they did not always find clear information on the practice website about how to complain and that when they did complain, they did not always receive a response.

We sampled 2 complaints and found the practice had followed its policy in terms of timescales for acknowledgement and investigation. Responses now addressed all the points raised in the complaint and we saw evidence that learning from complaints was a priority for the practice. Patients were signposted to appropriate organisations should they wish to escalate their complaint.

As well as formal complaints, the practice also welcomed feedback and compliments from patients and this could be provided in person or via the practice website. This was also monitored and shared with staff to improve morale and share learning opportunities.

Although we received feedback that patients felt information about how to complain could be clearer, overall we were assured the practice had improved its approach and processes to complaint management and used complaints and feedback to make improvements to the quality of care.

The results of the most recent national GP patient survey indicated the provider was below the national average on phone access with the practice achieving 39% compared to the national average of 53%. Patient feedback provided to the CQC highlighted that some patients had experienced long queues when telephoning the practice. We also received feedback that patients found the system to request care online was not always available throughout the day.

Our assessment found the practice was aware of this feedback and although not all people using the service were satisfied with the access options, people could access care and treatment in a way that worked for them. For example, the practice confirmed patients could request appointments online, in person and via telephone. Leaders spoke positively about how patient feedback on access had improved since the September 2025 introduction of a new on-line triage system (specifically feedback on patients' ability to speak with a preferred GP or clinician). For example, we were told that early data for the first 3 full months of its use showed that 50% of patients were now able to book appointments directly with a clinician and location of their choice each month without needing to contact the practice by phone. This was in response to feedback and the intention of the change was to offer a simpler and more user friendly system and encourage people that had could use online services to do so.

The practice monitored patient demand and staffing capacity was planned to meet this. This included a balance of face to face and remote consultations as well as appointments across the practice area.

The practice was alert to potential health inequalities and had considered how it could support patients that could be disadvantaged by their circumstances to have equality of access to care. For example, we were told homeless patients could attend the practice without an appointment and would receive care, so as to ensure the opportunity to support them was not missed.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Our assessment found the practice had embedded processes to support patients to plan their future care needs, for example, patients that were nearing the end of their lives. The practice held a monthly meeting to discuss all patients on the end of life register to ensure their care needs and wishes were being met. To avoid delays, when staff identified a patient was nearing the end of their life, they could refer to an internal team that managed end of life care for review within 24 hours. Any immediate care needs, such as medication, were acted on immediately and discussions were held with patients about their wishes for future care and treatment. These wishes were recorded in personalised care plans which were shared with system partners who may need to be aware. Staff had received internal training to support them when having conversations with bereaved family members.