The Gables Medicentre

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 assessed all quality statements in the responsive key question. 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 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 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.

Results from the latest NHS National GP Patient Survey showed that 90% of respondents felt they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment during their last appointment. This was in line with the national average of 91%.

Non-digital routes for access were available for those that were digitally excluded or low literacy, which included telephone lines with the option to speak to a person, paper forms at reception and support offered for filling in online forms.

The practice had equality and diversity policies, and staff had completed appropriate training.

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.

The service 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. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. The practice offered hearing loop support, a chaperone service and a quiet room for confidentiality.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We saw a complaint process was in place. Complaints had been investigated and managed appropriately.

Staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community.

We found people had multiple ways to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the GP National Patient Survey.

Overall, the service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, improvements to access were still in progress and needed time to imbed.

In the 2025 National GP Patient Survey 53% of respondents were positive about the overall experience of contacting the GP practice. This was against the national average of 70%. The percentage of respondents who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 32% which was lower than the national average of 53%. Since the survey, the practice had introduced a total triage system which had greatly improved patient access to the practice. Telephone access had been maintained with receptionist support for patients who could not use digital methods.

During our assessment, we looked at the practice’s appointment system and could see that patients were able to book appointments that suited their individual needs. We saw that there were still appointments available that day for unwell patients. Patients were able to book appointments over the telephone, in person and online.

The service had reviewed capacity and demand to identify how many on-the-day appointments were needed in relation to pre-bookable appointments and built the rotas accordingly. The practice used total triage which allowed patients to obtain appointments in various ways.

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

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.

People were supported to choose appropriate treatments. 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.