Swan 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 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 79 (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 was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to increasing demand and longer waiting times for appointments, service leaders had worked closely with an information technology company since 2024 and had been early adopters of technology to improve access and service delivery. This included for example an online system for managing medical and administrative requests and a virtual care navigator. People could submit online requests from 6am and staff had staggered start times which enabled earlier signposting for relevant requests. The virtual care navigator operated solely from 8 to 9am and took and processed all requests, which had significantly reduced call wait times and enabled staff to focus on responding to people’s needs. Outside of these times the virtual care navigator was still available and when call waiting times exceeded 10 minutes, calls were diverted to the virtual care navigator. The service also offered a call back system for people who made contact by telephone. All requests for appointments were triaged by a clinician. People continued to access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. Arrangements ensured access remained equitable and responsive to individual needs.

Between January 2024 and June 2026, despite appointment demand remaining stable, telephone demand reduced significantly. Average weekly calls fell from 1,091 to 516, average call waiting times reduced from 3.72 to 2.55 minutes, and the longest average wait reduced from 35.8 to 10.33 minutes. Since the introduction of the virtual care navigator in January 2026, the number of calls they handled increased from 176 to 226 by June 2026. This contributed to significantly reduced telephone demand, freeing up staff to act on non-clinical requests and shorter waiting times for people accessing the service.

The service had sought people’s feedback from March to July 2026 with 69% reporting the system as good or very good. Suggestions for further improvement were being actioned. The most recent data from the Integrated Care Board showed 93% of clinically urgent requests were dealt with on the same day. The service continued to monitor appointment data to ensure efficient use of available appointments and resources.

Results from the 2026 National GP Patient Survey showed the service performed in line with national averages for access indicators. For example, 49.5% of respondents reported it was easy to contact the service by phone, compared with a national average of 56.9%. Additionally, 77.3% of respondents rated their overall experience of contacting the GP service positively, compared with a national average of 72.6%.

The premises were accessible with an automatic entrance door. Consulting rooms were located on the ground and first floor with an assisted chair lift between floors. Arrangements were in place for people to be seen downstairs if needed and people we spoke with confirmed this. Interpreter services were available for those people whose first language was not English, and for people with a hearing impairment. A hearing loop was also available.

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. Care home representatives told us people received weekly visits from the same GP which had improved outcomes for people.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. For example, people with a learning disability were contacted directly to arrange their health check so it was booked at a convenient date and time and any reasonable adjustments needed were discussed, agreed, documented and acted on. Arrangements were in place for care coordinators to engage with people who were more likely to experience inequalities in health and outcomes. This was usually by telephone with escalation arrangements to a GP if repeated contact attempts were unsuccessful.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, care navigators supported people to access online services using iPads available for use at the service, if they could not do this independently.

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.