Lawrence Hill Health 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 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.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The practice provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the practice took it seriously and acted on it. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

This service scored 71 (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 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.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

People who were seen regularly by the practice had a named GP to support their care and treatment meaning they only had to tell their story once.

The practice 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 practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had people who misused substances and the practice worked with other community services to support them. 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.

Named GPs had dedicated continuity slots in their diary reserved for people that attended the practice frequently to support with the continuity of their care.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages and was on display on the screens in the waiting room. The practice had access to interpreter services, including a translator that attended the practice several days a week waiting to be called upon to translate in-person. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

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

We viewed a sample of complaints and saw they were managed in line with policy. However, we found responses to complaints did not always contain an apology or reference the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, if a complainant was not satisfied with the response from the practice. Complaint documents were not always saved which meant that the provider could not be assured that all concerns raised had been addressed. The provider said that complaints and learning were discussed in team meeting, however, minutes of these meetings did not demonstrate this. Not all staff were aware of how complaints were handled and any learning being shared.

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

The practice had a cloud-based telephone service where people could request a callback but remain in the queue to speak to the practice. The practice regularly monitored the demand for appointments and identified changes to improve access to the practice. For example, the practice had adjusted their appointment model and had increased their capacity from 5,577 appointments delivered in July-August 2024 compared with an increase of 3%5 to 7,534 delivered in July-August 2025.

Over the last 18 months, the practice has implemented a GP-led total triage model. Appointments could be requested online, over the telephone, or in person and these requests were reviewed the same day by the duty GP. People were seen in-person or spoken to over the phone by the appropriate member of staff to meet their needs. and actioned accordingly. Early morning and evening appointments were available for people of working age and school-aged children.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor with step-free access.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people 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 people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was mixed. The 2025 National GP Patient Survey indicated 85% of people were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was just below the local and national results of 91%. However, people said they did not always get the type of appointment they wanted, for example, some would have preferred to see a GP in-person.

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. For example, they worked with a community partner to provide an onsite Somali interpreter several days a week to support people accessing the service. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Reception staff supported those that may be digitally excluded to complete the online request forms.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as those of no fixed abode. During the onsite visit, we saw information displayed in different languages to support people to register.

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.