Pontesbury & Worthen Medical Practice

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

Overall, 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. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The service 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 services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the practice was part of the Shropshire Rural Primary Care Network (PCN) and hosted the extended hours clinics for the network every Saturday. The extended hours clinics provided access to a range of clinicians including pharmacists, practice nurses and health care assistants.

Patients had access to a range of information available on the practice website, electronic screens and on notice boards within the practice waiting areas across both sites in addition to photos of staff and their roles. However, the practice did not always ensure up-to-date information was available. The practice opening times were displayed on the door at the branch site at Worthen but not at the Pontesbury site and information about what to do when the practice was closed was not available. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) rating was not displayed on the practice website or at the branch site. Immediately following the inspection, the provider confirmed that this had been actioned.

Details of how to make a complaint on the website could also be clearer. The results of the GP patient survey indicated that the number of respondents who felt it was easy to use the practice website was below the local and national average. This had been identified by the practice as an area for improvements and planned to review the website in collaboration with patients by the end of January 2026.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Posters were displayed about how people could register at the practice, for example Ukrainian refugees. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

People told us and we found that details of how to make a complaint could be clearer to enable them to share their concerns. 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. At the time of the inspection, the practice did not have a Patient Participation Group, however plans were in place to reinstate this group.

The service made sure that most people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Appointments could be made by telephone, in person or online.

The practice scored positively in the National GP Patient Survey 2025 regarding access to care and treatment. For example, 63% of respondents found it easy to contact the GP practice on the phone, which was higher than the national average of 53%. A higher than national average of respondents (72%) reported that they found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App in comparison to national average of 49%.

However, only 35% of patients reported they usually got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, which was below the national average of 40%. During our site visit on 17 November the appointment system showed the next routine face to face GP appointment was within 2.5 weeks at Pontesbury and 6 weeks at Worthen. A telephone consultation appointment was available with an advanced clinical practitioner within 1.5 weeks, and a face-to-face consultation within approximately 6 weeks for both sites. A face-to-face consultation with a nurse was available within 1 week at Worthen and 8 weeks at Pontesbury. Appointments with a Health Care Assistant (HCA) were only available at Pontesbury. The system showed the next HCA appointment was available within 1 day.

We were told there had been a reduction in nursing staff and therefore availability of nurse appointments was reduced and services such as providing travel vaccines could not temporarily be offered due to demand. The practice had identified access as an area for improvement and at the time of the inspection, were in the process of recruiting an additional GP. The practice had also reviewed their appointment system in order for routine appointments to be booked 3 months ahead.

Staff and leaders 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.

Feedback provided by people using the service was mainly positive. 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, 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 provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances. 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 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. Multi agency meetings were held with the local hospice and district nurses to discuss and note patients’ wishes, including preferred place of death.

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.