Linkway Medical 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 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 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.

The practice told us that they regularly involved patients in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment that meets their needs and this was supported by the clinical records we viewed. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, deprivation of liberty safeguarding and mental capacity.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP National Patient Survey were slightly below local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 63% of people said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly below the local average of 71% and the national average of 74%.

A review of clinical records confirmed that patients were supported in understanding their conditions and were actively involved in planning and making decisions about their care.

The service 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 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. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice was an accredited armed forces veteran friendly practice. This provided improvements in the identification and coding of veterans and supported the staff understanding veterans’ health requirements and ensuring they received the appropriate care and treatment.

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. There was a range of posters on display within the waiting area of reception in a range of languages.

The practice website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for patients to support them to understand how to access services.

The practice produced a monthly newsletter to keep patients up to date with the latest information and any updates patients needed to be made aware of.

There were systems in place to support patients to access treatment, and patient records were held in line with guidance and requirements. We found the practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and that information about people collected and shared was in line with data protection legislation requirements. Patients were informed 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.

Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person or via the practice website.

Feedback from the GP national patient survey demonstrated that 85% of patients say the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the local average of 84% and the national average of 87%.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. The results for March 2026 showed 81% of patients who had attended the practice said the practice was very good/good.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment people received.

There was a patient participation group (PPG), in place and meetings were held every 2 months. We spoke with 7 members of the group who told us they were actively trying to encourage patients to join, and we saw evidence to promote the PPG in the reception area.

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. Minutes of meetings demonstrated complaints was a standing agenda item and were discussed weekly with the practice team to ensure learning was shared to improve patient satisfaction.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice told us they obtained feedback from various sources such as complaints and via informal feedback from patients. The GP national patient survey showed 19% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was considerably lower than the local average of 48% and the national average of 53%. The practice had joined the GP Practice Improvement Programme. The improvement programme focused on helping the practice develop systems and processes to improve access to improve patient experience, this included discussing new initiatives with the patient participation group and gathering feedback from patients to understand where improvements were required. The leadership team had implemented a range of initiatives to improve patient access. These included increased staffing in reception and changes to staff hours to match capacity. The practice had also introduced a call back service, to reduce patient waiting times on the telephone. The management team had also visited local practices to gather ideas on how to improve access.

Patients could access appointments by phone and online. The practice used an online triage system where all requests for a GP appointment were directed to the duty doctor to make a decision on the appropriate care pathway required. Patients were given the option of a face to face or telephone appointment. Patients who had a request for an emergency appointment were seen the same day. Feedback from patients we spoke with on the day of the assessment highlighted mixed reviews on the difficulties they faced in completing the form. Staff were available to support patients who were digitally excluded to complete the form. The practice website provided information for patients regarding how to book an appointment. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode. Information was also on display in a range of languages within the reception area to provide patients who did not have English as a first language with information on the appointment triage system.

Feedback from the PPG was mixed on the new triage system and we were told that the new system had been discussed with the PPG before implementation. We found copies of the online forms were available in paper form in the waiting area for patients to complete if they had no access to the internet.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week. Extended appointments were available for vulnerable people and those with a learning disability. The practice provided extended hours appointments on Monday evening until 8pm. When the practice was closed patients were able to contact 111. The practice offered appointments from a variety of additional clinical staff for example nurses and a pharmacist. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and on Saturday through an arrangement with other local GP practices.

Treatment rooms were available on both floors of the practice, with lift access in place for those who had difficulties using the stairs. Disabled parking and disabled toilet facilities were also available.

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.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes, including meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). We saw examples where the practice had removed barriers for improved patient experience. For example, the practice premises had a hearing loop in place and access to interpreters was available. We found the premises user friendly for people with a disability.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. 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 with learning disabilities and poor mental health experienced additional care through annual reviews. People with dementia were referred to appropriate services where required.

People with learning disabilities and poor mental health experiencedadditionalcare through annual reviews. The practice had clinical leads in these areas and dedicated clinical sessions were in place to provide specialised support. Extra appointments were available for the clinical leads in these specific areas to review and check patients as required.

The practice had a dedicated dementia nurse, who provided home visits to assess patients as well as providing appointments for patients at the practice. There was also 2 administration staff whose role was to organise annual reviews. The practice told us that having dedicated staff to these roles they had been able to build up a relationship with the patients which provided extra support.

People we spoke with on the day of assessment was positive about the services provided. 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. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

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.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making and had access to policies to support them. We were told that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings to share and discuss information relating to patient care and treatment, for example, those on the practice palliative care register. The practice has developed a register of patients on palliative care with the hospital palliative team. The practice team discussed patients on the palliative care register at their weekly meetings.

There were systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date in training relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. We found that staff had completed the required training.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms were in place and available within the clinical record.