Adam House 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 71 (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 generally 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. 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.

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.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information about the need to book for an interpreter was recorded on people’s records and additional time was provided for appointments.

The practice had access to interpreter / translation services and a hearing loop. Relevant information was recorded on the patient records. A hearing loop was also available. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

Information for carers, people with a learning disability, mental health, women’s health and the patient participation group (PPG) was on display. Leaflets were also available for a range of services including cancer support, bereavement support, talking therapies and mental health. Information was available in English.

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. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. For example, the introduction of the new telephone system.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People contacted the service to book appointments with a GP or the nurse practitioner by telephone on the day required. Appointments with the practice nurse and health care assistants were prebookable. People were offered appointments with the ‘on day’ service if appointments were not available at the service. Criteria was in place for reception staff to follow when booking appointments with the nurse practitioner.

The majority of feedback received from people was positive about their experience of contacting the practice. People reported they could get an appointment, either at the service or at another location through the ‘on day’ service but it was more challenging to book routine or follow up appointments. A small number of people commented on the 8am rush on the telephone and not being able to book an appointment on that day as all appointments had been taken.

National GP Patient Survey data supported people faced challenges and experienced dissatisfaction when trying to contact the service. Indicators showed 53% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice, below the national average of 67%. In addition, 31% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, again below the national average of 50%.

The service had installed a new telephone system in 2024, which enabled people to request a call back instead of waiting in the queue. The patient participation group (PPG) had carried out their own survey looking at telephone access in November 2024 and February 2025. The results of these surveys indicated that satisfaction with the new phone system had improved.

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 to CQC was mostly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

Disabled parking was available at both sites and people with reduced mobility had access to the buildings.

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.