Wellington Road 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. 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 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. 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. Care home representatives told us their residents received an annual health review to ensure their ongoing health needs were assessed and managed appropriately. Patients and their family members were involved in the discussions where appropriate, ensuring decisions were person-centred and reflected the resident’s wishes.

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. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was not available in a range of languages or provided in easy read or large font; however, staff told us this had not been requested to date but would consider this going forward.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available. The practice had access to interpreter services, and a member of staff was due to undertake training in British Sign Language. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The practice had a designated social media page, which provided people with a range of information including health promotion and events, patient feedback from the friends and family test (FFT).

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.

Information about how to make a complaint was available within the practice and on the practice website.

The practice had listened to and actioned patients feedback via a ‘You said We did’ exercise and displayed the outcome in the reception area. This included implementing a call back system in relation to phone queue waiting times to save patients waiting on the phone lines, recruiting an additional phlebotomist (blood taker) to increase capacity as patients requested more appointments and switching to a GP Triage system to manage and triage patient requests as patients wanted a fairer system for appointments.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. The practice had recorded 20 complaints in the previous 12 months. An analysis of complaints had been undertaken to identify trends and themes. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. From November 2025, the practice had implemented a digital Total Triage service where patients were requested to complete an online form. Support with how to complete the forms had been offered to patients. Reception staff provided telephone assistance or in-person support to maintain alternative access routes for patients unable to use online tools. The practice proactively encouraged patients to use the NHS app and had run clinics to help patients set this up and navigate the technology.

This ensured digital exclusion was not a barrier to care. All requests were reviewed by a triage GP who prioritised patients in accordance with need. Patients and staff told us this service was working effectively and had considerably reduced patient wait time for appointments. During our site visit we saw incoming requests were managed timely and effectively. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) representative told us there was a silent minority of patients that struggled with IT and interacting with staff at the front desk. Leaders were aware of and were addressing these concerns to ensure equity in access.

Overall feedback from care home representatives was positive about the service their residents registered with the practice received. They told us they were able to contact the practice via telephone, online triage, or email, and the practice was responsive to the needs of their residents. Two of the 5 representatives told us they would welcome more frequent visits from GPs.

Treatment rooms were available on both floors of the practice. A ramp with an automatic door had been fitted to the main entrance. A passenger lift was also available.

The National GP Patient Survey results for the practice found patients were positive about their experience of contacting the service and accessing appointments. The survey found 71% of people who responded to the survey were positive about their overall experience of contacting the practice, similar to the national average of 70%. In addition, 50% were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, in line with the national average of 53%.

Staff and leaders actively 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, both to the provider as well as to CQC, 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.

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. A care home representative told us when a resident’s condition changed, the GP held open and honest discussions with the resident and their family, and updated records as needed, taking into account the resident’s wishes. Another representative told us the practice had a positive approach to people with end-of-life needs, including discussion and support for patients and their families.