High Street 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 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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

The service was easy to access, which included physical access. People received fair and equal care and treatment.

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 that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it and in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or online. Appointments were mainly on the day, with prebookable appointments at the request of a GP, due to the high number of people who did not attend their prebooked appointment. Appointments could be prebooked for example, for physiotherapy, and nurse appointments and for some tests. GP and nursing team appointments were available on 2 weekday evenings and on Saturdays at a nearby practice. Arrangements were in place for people who were housebound to be seen by a clinician. Staff told us people with the most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised.

The service improved its approach to collecting feedback by introducing measures such as QR code cards and text message requests. This resulted in a significant increase in feedback received, providing a broader understanding of people's experiences, satisfaction, and access to the service.

People’s views were mixed regarding access to appointments in the previous 12 months, however more recent feedback showed improved satisfaction. This was mirrored in feedback from the patient participation group. Feedback from care home representatives was positive in relation to planned visits, however access for urgent appointments was mixed. Results from the National GP Patient Survey had improved since 2024 when 27.8% of respondents reported it was easy to contact the service by phone. This had increased to 35.6% in 2025, compared with a national average of 52.9%. 2026 data showed this had increased further to 57.2% compared to a national average of 56.9%.

Leaders had continued work to improve access. For example, they had strengthened capacity by recruiting 2 additional GPs since our previous assessment. They routinely monitored and reviewed appointment data to ensure efficient use of appointment time. For example, appointments with a doctor had increased from 1190 in July 2025 to 1807 in June 2026.

The service continued to minimise the number of staff who were off work at any one time and some staff were multi-skilled and worked flexibly in response to peak times of demand from people using the service, and to minimise the impact of unexpected staff absence. There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Call audits were completed with staff who answered phone calls for assurance, to encourage staff reflection, to identify areas of positive work and areas for improvement.

The premises were accessible, with treatment rooms located on the ground floor with access for people who use a wheelchair. Interpreter services were available for people whose first language was not English, and for people with a hearing impairment. A hearing loop was also available.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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.