Hazelwood Group 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 good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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 ensured people were at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Staff worked in partnership with individuals to respond to changes in their needs. Care plans were person-centred and reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Results from the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey showed that 91% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last appointment. The practice listened to patient feedback and used it to identify areas for improvement and, made appropriate changes to enhance the quality of care provided.

Information about patients’ care and treatment needs were available and shared appropriately between services when required. Services were tailored to meet the diverse needs of the population, with a focus on promoting health education and preventative care initiatives. The importance of flexibility was evident in the way services were delivered. Systems were in place to alert staff to any specific safety or clinical needs, ensuring that patients received appropriate and coordinated care.

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

Information to promote the uptake of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language (BSL). Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service 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 saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

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

According to the National GP Patient Survey data, 73% of patients responded positively to their overall experience of contacting the practice, which was slightly below the National Average of 75%. The GP Patient Survey further showed that 41% of patients found it easy to contact the practice by phone, compared with the national average of 53%.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they introduced a call back queue, the use of a digital letter-generation and the provider had gained funding to build additional consulting rooms. During the assessment we found that these changes had started to improve access for patients and further implementations such as introducing total triage in December 2025 to give options on the phone for efficiency will further support the needs of patients.

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 mainly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’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 and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

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.