Cockfosters 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 practice 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 practice 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.

Patient records (including those with care plans) reflected the physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Patients (or their representatives) were also involved in decisions about their care.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey for questions linked to patient experience showed that 82% of respondents stated the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, compared to 87% nationally and 88% locally. We saw that 74% of respondents found the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, compared to 83% nationally and 86% locally. Since our assessment the 2026 National GP Patient Survey results have been published which revealed that 87% of respondents stated the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, compared to 87% nationally and 86% locally. In addition, 75% of respondents found the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, compared to 85% nationally and 83% locally.

We saw that information about individual needs, including cultural, religious, social, and communication requirements, were recorded in patient records and used to guide care planning. Reasonable adjustments were made where required, which included access to interpreters, longer appointments, accessible formats, and flexible consultation options.

The practice 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 practice worked in partnership with other practices to meet the needs of its patient population. They led and participated in multi-disciplinary teams with other professionals to meet the needs of their patients. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare practices. Referrals to other practices were made promptly and information shared was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people. Referrals were managed to make sure they were received by external bodies in good time and were followed up as appropriate.

Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties to relevant external bodies through their social prescriber.

The practice was part a primary care network (PCN) and patients were able to obtain evening and weekend appointments at local hubs.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to a variety of interpreter practices. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

We noted that the practice website had the functionality to convert pages into nine different languages. The website also contained a page relating to health information, where patients could access supportive information, for example on long-term conditions, minor illness and how to obtain sick certificates.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff treated people with compassion and understanding. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey data (published at the time of our assessment) reflected people were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. 84% of respondents stated that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last appointment. This score was lower than the local and national averages of 90% and 91% respectively. Since our assessment the 2026 National GP Patient Survey results have been published revealing 86% of respondents stated that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last appointment. This score continued to be lower than the local and national averages of 92% and 91% respectively.

The practice had a Patient Participation Group (PPG), which met every 6 months to discuss proposed developments to the practice as well as patient experience.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The practice had extended appointments as standard for people with a learning and/or physical disability. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and power assisted door fitted to the entrance.

People could access the practice to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

The appointment system was flexible to adjust to the demand for appointments on the day and pre-bookable appointments. The practice used a hybrid triaging system for appointments and requests, allowing patients to submit requests online and by telephone. GPs were responsible for triaging the information. People were offered an appointment appropriate for their assessed needs.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey data and feedback received from people was mixed regarding their experience of contacting the practice. Indicators showed 74% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice which was above the local and national averages of 69% and 70% respectively. In addition, 60% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, this again was above both local and national averages of 55% and 53%. Since our assessment the 2026 National GP Patient Survey results have been published which revealed that 69% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice which was below the local and national averages of 75% and 77% respectively. Similarly, 54% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, this again was below both local and national averages of 62% and 57%.

Late evening and weekend appointments could be booked by the practice for patients who were at work during normal working hours. These appointments were provided through the local PCN.

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.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, 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 practice 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 practice, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

Feedback from users of the practice sent directly to the Commission was positive.

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. The practice identified patients approaching end of life and were sensitive to their needs for advanced care planning.

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 practices when necessary, including the out of hours service and other health care professionals involved in the care of this group of people.

Processes were in place to ensure that decisions were made which were in the persons’ best interest. When people did not have mental capacity to make their own decisions regarding end-of-life care and priorities for care and treatment. family members and carers participated in decision making.