The Village 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. The rating remains good following this assessment.

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 provider told us how they involved people in their care to ensure they understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. They took a holistic approach to people’s well-being and referred, and sign posted people to services for support with issues impacting on their health such as loneliness, finances and housing. The service made reasonable adjustments where appropriate to support people with their care and treatment. Services were established to meet people’s specific needs. For example, the practice was a veteran friendly practice. Feedback from the national GP Patient Survey showed people felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment and that their needs were met. The practice liaised with external professionals to discuss and plan people’s individual care and treatment.

Feedback from people who used the service in the national GP Patient survey showed that 91% of respondents (compared to 92% nationally) felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population and community.

Staff communicated and provided information in a way that helped people to understand their care. People’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded and shared. Information was adapted to meet peoples’ specific needs, for example through the use of translation services for people who did not speak English as a first language. Support was provided for people who had difficulty using digital services. The provider had ordered portable electronic devices to further assist with this. Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating health. The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use. We noted that further written information to support people with their health and welfare could be made accessible in the waiting area. Staff had received training on information governance and written guidance was accessible. A newsletter was produced that provided information about the service, such as any changes, the appointment system and help in the community.

Patients responded positively to the national GP patient survey for questions related to the healthcare professional being good or very good at listening to them and involving them as much as they wanted in decisions about their care. Feedback shared with CQC by people who used the service was positive with regards to people feeling listened to and involved in decisions. The provider monitored patient views through a variety of sources, including through the NHS Friends and Family Test. NHS Friends and Family Test results for August – October 2025 showed there had been 147 responses with 95% reporting that the service was very good or good. The provider took action when patient feedback suggested improvements were needed. For example, the provider had made changes to the length and type of appointments to better meet people’s needs.

Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to make a complaint. We reviewed a sample of complaints which showed a timely response and action taken. There was a process for learning from complaints and sharing any actions needed across the whole staff team. Staff were knowledgeable about the complaint process and how to support patients to make a complaint.

People could access care, support and treatment when they needed it and in a way that reflected their needs. People could make appointments online, over the telephone and in person. Consultations were face to face, on-line or by telephone and home visits were made in accordance with people’s needs. Appointments were offered on the same day and up to 4 weeks in advance. Extended hours appointments were offered through the PCN every Saturday and the practice offered telephone consultations 6.30pm – 8pm Monday to Friday. There were systems and processes in place to prioritise people presenting with the highest need. Vulnerable patients were given same day appointments. Digital flags were used within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

The reception team had been trained as care navigators and directed people to the most appropriate resources to meet their needs. The premises where the practice was situated housed other services for people, such as phlebotomy, children’s hospital clinics and a pharmacy, making these services more convenient. The premises had been assessed to ensure they were accessible for people with a disability.

The percentage of respondents to the national GP Patient Survey who were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice was 79% (compared to 70% nationally) and 81% of respondents (compared to 67% nationally) felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment. We spoke to 5 people who provided positive feedback about accessing the service. They made some suggestions for changes which were shared with the provider. Staff were positive about the arrangements for access to care and treatment.

The provider monitored access to ensure it continued to meet patients’ needs and introduced changes to improve access in accordance with the findings. For example, a change had been made to booking appointments in response to feedback from people and staff.

Leaders addressed barriers to 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. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and they made adjustments to promote this. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion and further training was planned. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions. Available data showed that people experienced similar outcomes when compared to services locally and nationally. The results of the national GP patient survey showed that 92% of respondents (compared to 90% nationally) felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment. The survey also indicated that 79% of people (compared to 75% nationally) described their overall experience of the practice as good.

People were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment. People were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Staff told us how they communicated with external health and social care professionals to discuss supporting people receiving end of life care. The provider told us that they reviewed people who had been provided with end-of-life care to look at the quality of care they had received.