Mayfield 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 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 75 (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.
Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. In the 2025 GP Patient Survey, 90% of people who responded indicated they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This figure aligns with the reported local average of 92%, and was close to the national average, which was 91%.
 

The provider 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 patient population. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers within the local Primary Care Network (PCN) and Integrated Care Board (ICB).
 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs such as easy read.
The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients 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.
Complaints were handled in line with the provider’s policy, and learning from them was clear. Staff could identify changes made as a result of patient feedback. However, patients had to ask staff for a complaints form, which could discourage some from raising concerns. We highlighted this to the service, and they immediately made the form available in reception without needing to ask.

The service took steps to improve access to care following feedback and survey results. While GP Patient Survey data showed only 37% of patients found it easy to get through by phone (compared to 57% locally and 53% nationally), the provider responded by increasing telephone staff during peak times and upgrading the phone system with a call-back feature to keep patients’ place in the queue. Some patients were initially unaware of this feature and continued to attend in person, but once this was raised, the service acted promptly by updating notices to ensure patients were informed.
People could access the service in different ways, including in person, by phone, or online. Although online access uptake was lower than local and national averages, the service had started offering support to patients who were not confident with computers to help improve this. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and the entrance had a ramp and automatic door for easier access.

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 via the Friends and Family Test was positive with a consistent score above 90% rating their experience as either good or very good. 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, such as learning disability advocacy groups 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 provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Homeless people could register at the practice without the burden of providing a home address.
 

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