Dr Philip West Also known as Boundaries 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 the service met people’s needs, and 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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 83% found it easy to get through to the service by telephone compared to 49% and 53% of the local and national averages. In addition, 72% found it easy to access services online or via the NHS app compared to the 48% local average and 51% national average. In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. This included changing appointment capacity to meet urgent needs, which reduced waiting times for people.

There were processes to ensure the on-the-day duty GP reviewed and contacted people whose online triage request deemed their clinical need as urgent, when daily appointments were fully booked. The service also had an electronic triage request system which was used and monitored daily for people’s requests that could not be triaged due to the complexity of the request or if no appointments were available and offered.

The service provided evidence of audits completed in relation to access performance, such as appointment capacity and demand data, appointment waiting times and ‘Did Not Attend’ (DNA) rates per GP to assess performance. This also helped provide oversight to rota management and staffing arrangements to meet access demand. The service had also reviewed audits of telephone access data which included the total number of inbound calls daily; queue waiting times and call abandonments. Peoples’ accessibility and communication needs were recorded in their clinical records. Staff were trained in the care navigation process to ensure people were directed to the most appropriate part of the service.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, staff had established a dedicated clinic to support people who were waiting to access specialist mental health care provision. This was run as a collaborative between local specialist services, charities and other health and care teams. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who faced digital exclusion. The service made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs in line with the Accessible Information Standards. For example, people with additional accessibility needs were supported to access and understand their care, including those whose first language was not English, through the use of translation services. Staff told us they had completed relevant awareness training in supporting people with learning disabilities, autism and dementia. The service held a register of people who were carers and offered annual health checks. The service provided examples of local care initiatives it engaged with to help support carers in the community.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.