Binscombe Medical Centre

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 practice met patient’s needs, and that staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. The practice was easy to access. Direct feedback to CQC highlighted patients found it easy to make appointments. Results from the National GP patient survey also highlighted that 66% found it easy to contact the GP practice using their website (national average 51%), and 65% found it easy to contact the GP practice using the NHS App (national average 49%). Patients received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback.

We received 58 comments about the practice from patients. The overwhelming majority were very positive and many who gave feedback provided examples that confirmed person centred care.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question as good. At this inspection, the rating has improved to outstanding.

This service scored 89 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice was exceptional at making sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’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.

The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 86% with the national average being 70%. In addition, 95% of patients described their overall experience of this GP practice as good, compared with the national average 75%.

Accessible standards and barriers to care were considered for patients, with alerts added to medical records so that the receptionists were aware the person had additional needs. For example, patients who were blind or hard of hearing were collected from the waiting room by the clinicians and a hearing loop was installed at reception.

A passport had been created for neurodiverse patients. The passport included important information that the patient felt they wanted people to know, including if they needed a quiet place to wait for their appointment or how they liked to be provided with information. This was entirely up to the patient if they wanted to create a passport or use it while at the practice.

The practice was able to offer appointments with a GP Chaplain. Appointments with the Chaplain were available on a Friday at the practice. The role of a GP Chaplain was to provide holistic, person-centred care by focusing on the spiritual, pastoral, and emotional wellbeing of patients, and their families. The practice had audited the number of people attending and had noted a marked increase in 2024.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The long-standing clinical staff team provided continuity and stability with minimal requirements for locum staff. Staff had forged excellent working relationships with many multi-disciplinary professionals to meet the needs of patients and all staff we spoke with were familiar with the patients who regularly attended the practice.

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 patients.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Results from the National GP patient survey showed that 94% of patients knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting their GP practice.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. The practice had a positive approach to receiving feedback and complaints we reviewed showed the practice responded to feedback appropriately, openly and in a non-defensive manner. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. Staff were aware of their duty of candour and to be open and honest when things went wrong.

The practice routinely asked patients to complete Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. Data from the FFT showed that for the month of August, 252 patients had responded, and the practice had received 96% positive comments. This was similar for July (246 patients responded with 98% positive comments), and June (286 patients responded with 95% positive comments).

Results from the GP patient survey showed the practice performed above the national average, achieving 95% for involving patients in decision-making, (the national average 91%). In addition, the national GP patient survey showed, 97% of patients who responded felt that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was good at listening to them, (the national average 87%).

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

The premises was wheelchair accessible, and all patients were seen on the ground floor. The practice had built an extension to the practice to gain 3 more clinical rooms due to an increasing patient list and the need to accommodate more staff members. The extension had been built to accommodate patients with wheelchairs or prams and had wider doors and corridors. The practice had a hearing loop. Patients could access appointments online, over the phone and in person.

Patients could access pre-bookable appointments at extended hours on Friday and Saturday mornings (including appointments with a nurse or Healthcare Assistant). Patients could also be booked in extended access appointments which was provided through East Waverley PCN, in the evenings during weekdays or on Saturdays. This ensured access for working patients and others who were unable to get to the surgery during normal opening hours.

The practice offered a range of appointments. These included emergency on the day, pre-bookable and clinics for conditions such as diabetes or asthma reviews. The provider maintained registers of patients with protected characteristics and informed them of additional services available for them.

The practice gave us examples of where additional support had been identified for patients. An example included: a patient with impaired hearing had an agreed emergency procedure where the patient could contact the practice by sending a text message to a landline phone number. When the practice responded to the patient, a spoken message would be converted to text, ensuring the patient was able effectively to convey an urgent message and be responded to.

The practice also provided an example of feedback given by a visually impaired patient, regarding practice signage. The patient was invited back to the practice to review where new signage needed to be placed to make the signs clearer for them and other patients with visual impairments.

Results from the GP patient survey showed the practice performed significantly better than local averages in several areas concerning access. For example, 83% of patients felt they waited the correct amount of time, compared with the national average 67%. Results from the National GP patient survey also highlighted that patients could easily access the practice, 77% of patients found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone (national average 53%)

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

Feedback provided by patients using the practice, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patients’ experience 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 equity in patient’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

Systems and processes were in place to assist in identifying patients who may need extra support. This included alerts on patients records to show what support they needed with communication such as interpreters. Care co-ordinators could support patients at risk of social isolation or poverty via community groups. For example, Clockhouse cafe for dementia patients, Farncombe Day Centre for loneliness and “meals on wheels” service.

The practice had created The Binscombe Walking Group. Originally this was run by a GP partner and HCA. The initiative was specifically designed to promote patient wellbeing, by providing a safe and inclusive environment that fostered community and broke down social barriers for those managing physical or mental health challenges. The walking group has now been taken over by a group of volunteers with practice staff still attending and renamed 'Wellbeing Walks'. Since its formation, the group has recorded attendance from over 400 people.

The practice had created a pilot for patients suffering with chronic pain using a more holistic approach. Following training one of the GPs invited 20 patients to attend 4 sessions held at Farncombe Community Garden. The first session was run in October 2025 with 10 patients attending. The pilot included a structured four-topic curriculum. The patients were sent a questionnaire to complete before the first session, and an evaluation will be completed at the end. A further evaluation, 2-3 months after completion of the pilot, will be completed to see the impact of the sessions on quality of life, level of pain and use of pain relief.

The practice organised annual free seminars for patients and residents at a local church. Past topics included generalised anxiety, women’s health and challenges associated with ageing. In October 2025 a chronic pain seminar was held. Approximately 80 people attended, and feedback was very positive.

The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs and complex medical issues.

The practice liaised regularly with community services to discuss and manage the needs of patients with complex medical issues.

Patients 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 patients 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 practice used the Marie Curie Daffodil Standards to improve end-of-life care for patients. (The standards consist of eight core domains that cover aspects like early identification of need, planning and delivering personalised care, and providing support to carers and families after death). The practice had conducted a retrospective audit of deaths. The audit reviewed the last 20 deaths and reviewed areas such as the proportion of patients who had next of kin included in their notes, if ReSPECT forms ( A ReSPECT form is a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment that outlines personalised recommendations for a person's clinical care in an emergency where they cannot speak for themselves), had been completed, and if they had achieved their preferred place of death. Findings of the audit were reviewed by the practice to drive improvements, and we saw an action plan had been created in response.

The practice fully engaged in regular, well attended multi-disciplinary team meetings to assess and support patients in reaching decisions about their end-of-life care. This identified that patients’ views had been sought and respected. Minutes of these meetings were recorded, saved, and shared with relevant agencies. We were assured that safeguards were in place to ensure that decisions were made which were in the person’s best interest. When patients did not have mental capacity to make their own decisions regarding end-of-life care, family members and carers were involved in decision making.