Drs Sells and Dr Kyaw Also known as Lyngford Park 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 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.

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. Staff got to know people during regular appointments and offered care and treatment with a person-centred approach. They also provided longer appointments for people who needed them. Staff gave examples of how they provided holistic care for people with diabetes, such as exploring their diet and nutritional needs in addition to providing proper wound care. People who provided us with feedback consistently said the service was excellent and exceptional.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. Our review of the clinical system demonstrated that referrals to other services were made promptly, and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people. People’s feedback to CQC provided examples of how their medical conditions were managed jointly and efficiently by the service and the hospitals. The service actively promoted continuity of care by booking people to the same GP, when possible. This approach particularly supported people who needed to attend multiple appointments as they had built a relationship with their GP and were supported along their care journey. We received feedback from some people who had been with the service for decades and were satisfied with the level of care over the years. Many people said they had or would recommend this service to other people.

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

Staff highlighted any communication or accessibility needs on the electronic clinical record. Interpreter services were available for people who did not speak English. The notice board in the waiting area provided various health information including signposting to services that local pharmacies could offer, flu vaccination programme and screening services for men’s health.

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 system to record and investigate complaints. Information on how to complain was available via the service’s website and complaint leaflets were available at the reception.We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. People could raise concerns by emails, in writing or by phone. When they did, we saw concerns were listened to and a response was provided. The service held regular meetings with staff to review complaints and share the lessons learned and actions taken. The service regularly collected people’s feedback through the NHS Friends and Family Test. Feedback from members of the patient participation group (PPG - a group of people who represented the views of people using the service) included they felt valued by the service. Comments included, “The Practice listens to PPG views and takes action where appropriate” and “we celebrate success and achievements, processes that have worked well as well as learn from events that have not gone so well."

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

People could access appointments over the phone, online and in person. Using the up‑to‑date electronic signposting guide, receptionists directed people to appropriate services or booked appointments based on urgency and clinical need. Appointments were booked with named doctors unless otherwise requested. A duty doctor was readily available for advice if needed.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the additional support some people may need when attending their appointment such as requiring a translator or a longer appointment.

We reviewed the appointment diary during the site visit. We saw same-day appointments were available for urgent needs. The wait for routine, pre-bookable appointments with a specific doctor ranged from 2 to 3 weeks. People who wished for an earlier routine appointment could be seen by GP registrars (a fully qualified doctor who is training to become a GP) who did not hold their own patient list. These appointments were available on the same day or within a week. Pre-booked appointments were available every Tuesday evening to enhance access for working people and others who were unable to attend during normal opening hours.

People’s feedback to CQC and through the Friends and Family Test showed most were satisfied with access to the service, describing quick and appropriate appointments. The 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that 92% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting their GP practice, which was higher than the national average of 70%. In addition, 79% found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone, which was above the national average of 53%.

There was level access to the building with automatic doors, and all the clinical rooms were on the ground floor. A wheelchair was available near the reception for people with mobility needs. Additional needs, such as mobility needs, were recorded on clinical records to alert staff. For example, the service assigned consulting rooms closer to the waiting area for people with mobility needs.

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 positive about being supported to access care and treatment. The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience and provided continuity of care with a named GP.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, people with a learning disability could have longer appointments at a time of day which suited them and when the service was quieter.

The service had identified that there was inequality in support available for new dads. In response, they took part in the “Becoming Dads Supporter Programme” in Somerset. A designated staff member received training from the local Integrated Care Board (ICB is an NHS organisation responsible for planning and funding of services for their local population) to provide advice and guidance to new dads or signpost them to relevant resources to promote their physical and mental health. The service was an accredited veteran friendly practice. The service supported veteran’s physical and mental health, and they could be referred to dedicated specialist healthcare services when required.

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. The service discussed people on palliative care in monthly multi-disciplinary team meetings to optimise their care. The service recognised the importance of personalised communication to ensure people maintained their dignity and remained pain-free at the end of their life.