Lane End 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 the practice 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. We saw some areas of outstanding practice when we inspected, which are detailed below.

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

The practice was slightly below the local and national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey in relation to patient satisfaction with their overall experience of the practice. 70% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting the practice as being good, compared to a local average of 73% and a national average of 75%. 40% of respondents felt that it was easy to get through to the practice by telephone, compared to a local average of 55% and a national average of 53%. 58% of respondents to the survey found it easy to contact the practice using the website, which was above the local average of 50% and the national average of 51%. 55% of respondents to the survey found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, which was above the local average of 46% and the national average of 49%. The practice had analysed the results of the National GP Patient Survey and had devised an action plan to address areas where the practice fell below the local and national averages. For example, in relation to the feedback on telephone access, the practice identified that this remained an issue for patients at the practice. It put in place plans to reduce call demands, monitor call volumes, and manage the staff rota to adjust for peak demand. The practice promoted online access, text messaging services and introduced call-back functionality. The practice had planned further staff training on communication and monitored the Friends and Family Test feedback and additional feedback received from patients.

The practice had moved to a ‘total triage’ model for appointments with an emphasis on ensuring that patients who requested an appointment were allocated to the right person. The practice stated that this had resulted in capacity meeting the demand for patient appointments. The practice had employed a planned approach to digital change for patients, including communication of all changes to the patient population in advance, provided dedicated staff to support patients to use digital tools, had run workshops and a presentation morning in the practice to demonstrate these changes, and had run one to one support sessions to increase patient confidence in the use of digital tools. Following feedback during implementation, the practice adjusted its processes by opening appointments further in advance, increasing available booking slots, and introducing a dedicated triage telephone line to improve patient access and convenience. The practice told us that patients were clinically assessed and directed to the most appropriate clinician or service. The practice had an average of 12 appointments available daily. Patients who were not able to use the digital systems were supported by staff who would complete the requests for appointments. The practice had processes in place to monitor patient feedback. The practice had introduced a new telephone system which showed call volumes and staff were allocated to support when calls volume increased. The practice had analysed the waiting times for calls received and had found that the average call time had fallen by 57% since the introduction of the new system, with an average wait time of 14 minutes in May 2025 which fell to 6 minutes in May 2026. Abandoned calls had reduced by over 90%, with a reduction from approximately 100 abandoned calls a day to fewer than 10. No complaints relating to access were received by the practice during May 2025 to May 2026. Patients’ individual communication needs and reasonable adjustments were recorded on the patient record, which allowed staff to respond appropriately at the point of contact. Where patients had a language barrier, the practice arranged for interpreting services and double length appointments. For patients who were unable to attend the practice during the working day, the practice offered weekend, evening and early morning appointments and a mix of telephone and face to face appointments. The practice told us about proactive work for people who had difficulties in accessing services, using wellbeing calls and signposting to services. The practice had a dedicated process for providing support for people with learning disabilities and had achieved the highest uptake of learning disability checks in the locality.

We saw areas of outstanding practice where the practice had moved to a digital model for triage. The practice told us that it had been recognised nationally for its work in digital transformation and patient-centred digital care. Its approach supported patients to ensure that all of the patient population, including those who were digitally excluded, could confidently access online NHS services. They achieved this by offering weekly drop-in sessions, one to one patient support and group education presentations. The practice’s approach was shared nationally as a case study of good practice. The practice told us that the one to one support sessions had increased patient confidence in using the triage system, increased digital inclusion, helped submit better quality requests and increased understanding of available services. The practice observed that the increase in uptake of online triage had reduced telephone demand, shortened waiting times and had ensured that patients were directed to the right clinician, which had improved satisfaction with access. The practice had worked closely with the Patient Participation Group (PPG) in the development and delivery of the online triage system. Feedback from the group was used to improve accessibility, patient communication and understanding of the triage process. The PPG helped design and support a programme of patient education evenings. These were based on feedback and identified community health priorities, including sessions on menopause support, diabetes education, weight management and wider wellbeing initiatives. We spoke with a member of the PPG who told us that the practice was open and transparent in its interactions and actively listened to and implemented feedback. They told us the PPG worked collaboratively in refining the patient triaging system, addressing challenges faced by individuals who struggled with accessing technology and worked in collaboration with the practice in supporting patients.

The practice told us that it had successfully modernised repeat prescription orders to a digital model whilst ensuing that no patient was disadvantaged by digital transformation. The practice transitioned from approximately 70% of repeat prescription requests being submitted on paper to 100% being submitted online using the NHS App. The practice ensured that patients were supported through this change, using a programme of patient engagement and digital inclusion. The practice offered one to one training sessions for patients to assist them in downloading the App and access and use the App independently. The practice stated that this had ensured vulnerable groups were not excluded from the change and were empowered to manage their healthcare digitally. Patients had 24 hour access to prescription ordering and status updates. The practice told us that prescription related complaints had reduced significantly as patients were able to track and manage requests themselves. The practice stated that older patients, who were initially reluctant to use digital services, reported increased confidence following individual support sessions. The practice told us that since implementation, call volume had reduced from 130 calls to 60 calls per day (over 50% reduction). Administrative time dedicated to prescription processing had reduced from approximately 5 hours per day to 1 hour per day. Staff were able to redirect time which would have previously been spent managing prescriptions to assisting patients with more complex needs and focus on proactive patient support rather than administrative activity.

We saw evidence that the practice had analysed patient feedback on the total triage model. A survey of patient views showed that two thirds of patients felt safe in sharing their information, and there was a preference for using the online form and engaging digitally, 7 out of 10 patients reported that the service met their needs, and that most patients reported being satisfied with the experience. The practice told us that the survey illustrated that 79% of patients responded that the service was quick, 76% stated it was easy to use, 73% said it was convenient, 67% felt safe in sharing health information, 61% stated it saved time and 67% said that they were satisfied overall.

Staff we spoke with told us about a well embedded ethos of patient-centred care and the taking of patient feedback seriously. They told us that feedback was taken on board and used to drive improvements.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the practice to the practice through the Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the 2025 National GP Patient Survey was generally positive. The practice analysed the results of the FFT and from April 2025 and March 2026, 72% of patients who provided feedback felt the practice was ‘very good’. 21% of patients felt the practice was good, 3% stated it was neither good nor poor, 2% felt the practice was poor and 2% felt the practice was very poor. The practice had analysed the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey and had devised an action plan to address areas where the practice had fallen slightly below the local and national averages. The practice fed back to patients where improvements were being made to address concerns. The practice produced a “You said, We did” poster which was displayed around the practice. This detailed the improvements that had been made in direct response to feedback. For example; in response to feedback about difficulties for people in navigating the NHS App, the practice had provided dedicated one to one sessions for patients. In response to feedback about a lack of nursing appointments, it had recruited an additional nurse and had increased nurse appointments. The practice reported that in response to feedback about carer support, it had started to host regular events and support groups for carers. In response to feedback about checking blood pressure, the practice had installed a machine in the reception area for patients to check their own blood pressure. In response to feedback about difficulty in reaching the practice by telephone, the practice had introduced online services to reduce wait times. The practice provided patients with a QR code for them to leave feedback online and regularly reviewed this feedback.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) worked with patients to gather insight into their experience for the practice to improve. The PPG member we spoke with told us that the practice had made efforts to engage all demographics to participate in the group and had issued invitations to underrepresented groups to attract broader participation.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experiences 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 equality in people’s experiences and outcomes. The practice told us that it made adjustments to appointment availability to reduce access barriers, including weekend appointments, evening appointments, early morning appointments and a mix of face to face and telephone appointments. The premises was fully accessible for people with mobility impairments and a hearing loop was available for patients with hearing impairments. For patients with visual impairments, the practice provided some braille literature and messages could be read to patients in an audio format where required. The practice captured patient requirements and reasonable adjustments on its new patient registration questionnaire and recorded this information.

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.