Dr J Sullivan & Partners Also known as Moorside 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 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 people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Both urgent (same day) and pre-bookable appointments were available. The service offered extended access appointments which included evening and weekend appointments. Home visits were also offered to patients where appropriate.

Staff received care navigation training to enable them to efficiently direct people to the most appropriate clinician or service. Leaders regularly reviewed telephone data, including call waiting times, and acted in response to this.

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs. For example, 75% of respondents to the survey were positive about their overall experience of contacting the service, compared to local and national averages of 70%.

Clinical rooms were based on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service. Dedicated parking was available for those with a disability.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The service took steps to promote equity by identifying and supporting people who may be at increased risk of poorer experiences. This included signposting and referral to a range of community-based services aimed at addressing social isolation, mental health needs, and support for parents and carers. We saw examples of holistic assessments and welfare checks being carried out for vulnerable patients, via the proactive care team.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care. Reasonable adjustments were made where required, and staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances. The service offered 15-minute appointments to allow sufficient time to discuss specific care needs, with the option to extend this where required.

The service had limited systems in place to capture and review feedback from people who used the service. For example, the service did not carry out its own patient surveys and had not had a patient participation group (PPG) in place for the last few years. However, the service informed us that the PPG would be re-established, with the first session due to take place in May 2026, and that patient surveys would be developed as part of this group.

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.