Tower House 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 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 in-line with the national average in the results of the National GP Patient Survey. This showed 77% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting the practice as good, compared to a national average of 70%. The survey showed that 85% of patients said the reception and administrative staff were helpful (national average 83%) and 74% of patients said they knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice (national average 83%).

The 2026 National GP Patient Survey results had just been published, and the provider had not reviewed the results at the time of the assessment. However, they had anticipated that the introduction of a new appointment system that coincided with the last patient survey may affect their attainment. The provider had a mechanism for reviewing patient feedback and in response to feedback had made changes to improve access which included reviewing the appointment system, staffing levels and skill mix.

We spoke to 2 patients who told us they experienced good access to the service. We received feedback from 10 people who completed a Give Feedback on Care survey as part of our assessment and 9 made positive comments about access, care and treatment. The provider monitored people’s feedback about access, for example through the PPG, Friends and Family Test and the National GP Patient Survey.

The provider reviewed accessibility of the physical premises and equipment. For example, there were treatment rooms on the ground floor, parking spaces close to the practice for people with a disability and baby change facilities.

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.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. 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. Alerts were placed on people’s records to identify their needs and how they were to be met, for example, by providing a longer appointment.

Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion.

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.