Wychbury Medical Group

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 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 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.

Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, safeguarding and mental capacity. 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.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP National Patient Survey were in line with local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 82% said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the local average of 82% and slightly below the national average of 86%,

Patients had access to appointments provided by a range of clinicians. The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum.

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

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 services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, the practice had a relatively older population and told us they carried out 3% of home visits which was higher than the national average.

Paramedics and GPs provided continuity of care for patients with learning disabilities residing in supported living accommodation. Feedback obtained from care homes regarding the GP service delivered by Wychbury Medical Group was positive. Care home representatives reported that patients were able to access appointments with GPs and clinical staff both face to face and through home visits, and that annual reviews were consistently carried out.

There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. All communication needs and reasonable adjustments were flagged as alerts on patient records.

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for patients to support them to understand how to access services.

The practice produced a regular newsletter to keep patients informed of changes within the practice, services available, and local initiatives. In addition, at the Wychbury site, a patient library was available in the reception area, providing access to books and supporting a welcoming environment.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. Patients were informed how to access their care records.

The practice collaborated with the social prescriber to identify patients aged over 75 who had not attended the surgery for more than a year, in order to review their wellbeing and provide appropriate support, including signposting to community groups or activities where required.

The practice had plans to introduce digital champions across all sites and to hold patient drop-in sessions in January 2026 to support the transition to a total triage system. These initiatives were being developed with the support of the Patient Participation Group (PPG).

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.

There was a complaints policy and a nominated complaints lead in place. The practice had investigated 15 complaints in the last 12 months. We reviewed 4 complaints and found they were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Information on how to make a complaint was readily available; however, we noted that the complaints poster only advised patients on how to complain verbally and did not include guidance on submitting a written complaint. We raised this and the provider took immediate action to address the issue. A yearly audit was carried out to identify trends and implement improvements to the quality of services provided.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment people received.

The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG). A member of the group told us they were working on improving communication with patients to better engage, educate, and involve them in health initiatives. We also saw evidence of PPG promotion displayed in the reception areas across the sites.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as complaints and friends and family feedback from patients. The GP national patient survey showed 63% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was above the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%.

Patients could access appointments by phone and online. The practice had arrangements in place for prioritising patients. Staff were trained to book appointments with members of the practice clinical team or signpost patients to other appropriate services. Patients were given the option of a face to face or telephone appointment. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day and request for home visits could be made through a dedicated line.

The practice used a cloud-based telephony system for patient calls, accessible to staff at all sites. Call volume was uncapped and consistently monitored so additional staff could assist during peak periods. Data showed that monthly reviews of the telephone system were undertaken. For example, in September 2025 the practice received 18,305 calls, with 60% answered with an average waiting time of 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

A call back facility was in place to reduce waiting times for patients attempting to contact the practice. Records indicated that 1,412 patients requested a call back during September, of which 1,320 were successfully completed.

Monthly reports were analysed to identify areas for change, and actions were taken to inform planning around capacity and demand. Although the total triage service had not yet been fully implemented, the practice had plans to adopt it within the next 12 months, with a strategy day scheduled to develop this further.

The practice website provided patients with clear information on how to book an appointment. Patients could also use the ‘Get Help’ function on the website for non-urgent requests, with monitoring and auditing processes in place to support this.

Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week, including late night opening until 8pm on Wednesday and Thursdays. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact 111. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and at the weekend through an arrangement with other local GP practices.

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.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We noted some access limitations for wheelchair users at the Chapel House Surgery site; however, clear signage was in place to inform patients of this and to direct them to alternative sites with full disabled access. At the time of our assessment, the provider was also in the process of installing a new disabled access toilet at this location, with architectural and building plans underway to ensure compliance with AIS.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. The practice was registered as a safe surgery and veteran accredited. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English.

People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

People we spoke with on the day of assessment was positive about the services provided. 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.

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.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making and had access to policies to support them. We were told that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings to share and discuss information relating to patient care and treatment, for example, those on the practice palliative care register.

There were systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date in training relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. We found that staff had completed the required training.

There were registers held for those patients who were vulnerable who were on the palliative care register or at the end of their life. We found that clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making and saw that consent was documented.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We reviewed a random sample of 3 clinical records of people who had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) form in place and found they were relevant, completed and available within the clinical record.