Archived: Collington Surgery

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

Staff took responsibility for lead roles in different specialisms to support people to understand their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits).

Staff told us people’s preferences were taken into consideration when booking appointments for example special requirements based on religious or cultural beliefs, or disabilities. Female and male staff were available at the practice. Where appropriate, staff ensured carers and dependants were involved in the planning and making shared decisions about the person’s care and treatment.

In the national GP patient survey 2025 86% of respondents stated they believed the healthcare professionals had all the information they needed about them. This was below the local and national average for patient responses achieving 92%. Respondents reported they knew the next steps within two days of contact with 94% of respondents reporting positively on this. This was in line with the local average or 94% and above the national average of 93%.

Care plans reflected physical, mental and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

People received care and treatment from the service that demonstrated an understanding the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because services were delivered flexibly.

There were effective systems in place to ensure newly diagnosed people had access to information about their conditions and had been signposted to support services they may wish to access.

There were now established and effective processes for people to feedback on the service and care they received independently of the national GP patient survey or Friends and Family test. The practice had advertised their active patient participation group as an established means of communicating with people and gathering feedback. The members met in person and minutes of the meeting were available for people to review and comment on.

People reported high levels of satisfaction with their care in the national GP patient survey. For example, 87% of people who responded to the survey told us the healthcare professional was good at listening to them. 88% of people who responded to the survey told us they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. The responses were comparable with the local and national levels of patient satisfaction.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Staff told us they kept people and those important to them up to date on the outcome of concerns reported. We reviewed complaint records and saw people had been responded to in a timely and appropriate manner.

Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, the practice reviewed the presentation of their website in response to patient feedback, to make it more accessible and easier to navigate. This resulted in a 70% increase in usage.

People reported difficulties contacting the practice, by telephone, via their website and the NHS app. Results from the national GP patient survey 2025 shows people’s satisfaction rates were below the local and national averages. For example, 48% of respondents reported contacting their GP as good compared to the local average of 69% and the national average of 70%. 26% of respondents stated they were able to contact the service easily on the telephone and 26% found their website easy to use. These satisfaction results were below the local and national satisfaction which ranged between 49% and 53%.

In response to the national GP patient survey data 2024 and 2025, and from feedback from their patient participation group and members of the community, the service had implemented improvements. For example, they had improved and centralised their telephone system. This reduced call waiting times and provided people with a call back option without losing their place in the queue. They redesigned their webpage to improve how they communicated with people and have identified a 70% increase in usage since the introduction. They offered extended appointments for people with a learning or physical disability. Treatment rooms were on the ground floor or accessible by lift. The service also requested feedback from people on their experiences so they can identify early barriers to access and improve patient experience of the service.

The service actively monitored their accident and emergency and unplanned admission rates to identify trends in clinical risk and changes in demand on services. They used this information to respond and adjust services. We observed the process and saw people had been assessed or their enquiries responded to in a timely manner.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice offered extended access appointments with a GP or paramedic from 6.30pm to 8pm on weekdays, Saturday and Sunday and bank holidays through their primary care network. Text and telephone call reminders were sent to people to reduce non-attendance rates and arrangements were in place for prioritising people.

Staff were trained and considered the time and duration of the appointment, environment and staff required. For example, extended appointments were offered for people with a learning or physical disability.

There were established processes in place to assess patient experiences and their outcomes. Systems were in place to ensure trained staff followed up and reviewed clinical referrals and results.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they had the capacity to do so. This information was shared with other services and staff. People’s decisions and what mattered to them were recorded through personalised care plans that were shared with others who may need to be informed.

When people expressed their wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation, they were supported to do so and were able to change their mind if they wish. When any treatment was changed or withdrawn, professionals communicated and managed this openly and sensitively so that people had a comfortable and dignified death.