Albrighton Medical 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 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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

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.

Feedback from patients reflected this with 97% of respondents to the 2025 GP Patient Survey stating they felt involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment.

The service recorded individual preferences and staff took time to understand individual needs, recognising and recording decisions and choices made by people who use the service.

The service understood the local demographics and ensured care plans were in place, appropriate and shared with relevant team members and stakeholders. The service actively responded when an appointment was not attended, taken further actions where appropriate to ensure the person was not in need of urgent care.

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 patient population. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote women’s health

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs when requested and used interpretation services regularly.

The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language and a hearing loop was available. There was no signage in alternative languages for those who English was not their first language, however, since the onsite assessment we have received evidence from the service that key signage and information is now on display in alternative languages.

The service website had translation facilities and contained information about health conditions and support services. There were various notice boards with health information, support groups and services for a range of subjects such as social prescribing, teen health and breast screening.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) was well established and had good communications with the service, meeting minutes showed information sharing relevant to the group and these minutes were available within the waiting room.

The service had an open and honest approach to people sharing feedback and ideas or raised complaints about their care and treatment.

All staff spoken to reported that feedback could be received by any member of staff. There was no information displayed showing how to complain, for people who may have found it difficult to speak directly to a member of staff. Following the onsite assessment we have received evidence that this has been rectified by the service and people now had access to the information in various formats including posters and leaflets.

Patient feedback showed that people felt listened to and were given time during appointments to talk, this was reflected in the latest results of the National GP patient survey results, where 95% of people said the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening to them during their last appointment. This is above the national (87%) and local (88%) averages.

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

The services made extended appointments available for those with additional requirements such as extra time for language interpretation or requiring additional time for physical needs. In response to feedback the service had introduced a new triage system for access, people could request appointments in various ways to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The staff supported people with any technology constraints and before the system was launched the services had visited community groups and held meetings to demonstrate the system and diminish concerns.

We saw evidence that this system allowed equity in access by freeing up phone lines for those who were unable to use the online process and those most in need were prioritised.

The service was aware of the requirements to meet the Accessible Information Standards (AIS), and the patient record system was used to alert staff to any communication needs of the patient so that staff could then communicate effectively with the patient. The service offered extended hours within the Primary Care Network (PCN) including evenings and Saturday mornings, there was collaboration with community support groups such as driver schemes to support for those people who had a lack of transport.

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 from people using the service was 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.

Home visits were carried out for housebound and vulnerable patients. The service also supported patients in care homes across the locality.

Staff demonstrated an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in patients’ experiences. Interpreters were available to support patients whose first language was not English, helping to ensure effective communication and informed decision-making. Appointment adjustments were also made where needed, such as offering longer consultations or scheduling appointments at the end of the day to better suit individual needs.

Staff shared examples of adjustments made for people such as giving time outside of appointments to sit and read through hospital letters to support understanding.

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 didn’t always have the information regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation clearly documented within patients electronic records, this had already been identified by the service leaders and a case study, audit and actions agreed which were being completed when the inspection took place.

The service supported local care homes, we saw evidence and received feedback showing good communications and collaborative work based on gold standard framework for end of life care. The service conducted palliative care meetings with input from specialist teams to ensure patients’ needs were regularly reviewed and addressed. Continuity of care was prioritised, with efforts made to ensure that palliative patients were seen by the same GP wherever possible, supporting consistent and personalised care.