Sunniside Surgery Also known as Sunniside 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 has remained the same.

This service scored 79 (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.

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

Feedback from staff was consistent, they said they worked well together as a team to provide good care for patients.

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. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers.

We sought feedback from the care home which the practice was aligned to support. They told us that access to the practice was straightforward and the practice responded well to their requests for home visits. A dedicated GP attended on a weekly basis, to continue to strengthen joint working. Clinical staff spent time with patients and built trusting relationships, which helped enhance the quality of care delivered.

There was a process for identifying people with extra healthcare and communication needs. Alerts were added to their clinical records so that staff were immediately aware of how to assist them.

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

Staff communicated with patients in a way that helped them to understand their care, treatment and condition, and any advice given. They helped patients and their carers find further information and access community and advocacy services. They had systems in place to access 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 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. The practice had a positive approach to receiving feedback and complaints. From the complaints we reviewed we saw the practice had responded to feedback appropriately, openly and in a non-defensive manner. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback. For example, appointments start time were changed to 7.30am at the practice together with the opening of the telephone lines at 7.30am. Hearing aid batteries were made readily available for patients at the practice rather than patients needing to travel to the local hospital. Staff demonstrated an understanding of their Duty of Candour and the importance of being open, honest, and transparent when things go wrong.

The practice routinely asked patients to complete Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback forms and reviewed the feedback for any trends or themes. In the 3 months prior to the assessment, the NHS Friends and Family Test results for the practice scored good or very good rating of 96% in January 2026 and 100% for December and November 2025.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed the practice performed above the national average, achieving 99% of respondents who stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them, (the national average was 87%).

The service consistently made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Services were delivered in a way that ensured flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

People could access the service in a way that suited their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. The practice’s eConsult service was available to patients 7 days a week to improve accessibility, although responses were provided within normal practice working hours. Leaders also opened phone lines from 7.30am and appointments start times from 7.30am in an attempt to maximise equity in access for all of their patients. As the practice population continued to grow, and with further local housing developments increasing demand, leaders had expanded GP capacity by adding an additional GP session each week, creating 16 more appointments to help meet patients’ needs.

Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed the practice performed significantly better than national averages in several areas concerning access. The percentage of respondents to the National GP Patient Survey who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 92.5% compared to the national average of 52.9%. The percentage of respondents to the same survey who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice was 99% compared to the national average of 69.6%.

The provider demonstrated how people who may face barriers based on their protected characteristics could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They accessed this in a way that worked for them, promoting equality, and removing barriers or delays. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability and staff booked appointments at quieter times if helpful for patients. They also had a tablet computer in reception to help show patients how to use online services if they were struggling.

The premises was wheelchair accessible, and all patients were seen on the ground floor. The practice had a hearing loop.

The practice recognised that patients, both within the practice and across the PCN, faced challenges accessing services due to location and accessibility issues. In response, they introduced clinics offering long‑acting reversible contraception (LARC). This initiative had delivered significant benefits for patients and helped to ease demand on secondary care services.

Leaders also ensured other services were provided for their patients in the practice including minor surgery and smoking cessation services. Both services to enhance 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 consistently positive. According to the National GP Patient Survey carried out between January and March 2025 patients were satisfied with access to the practice. Figures showed the practice performed well above national averages in the access indicators. Leaders told us they regularly reviewed access and appointment information.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff 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. They understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs and complex medical issues. We saw staff liaised regularly with community services to discuss and manage the needs of patients with complex medical issues.

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.

Information was available on the practice website on how to access an appointment online and by the telephone or in person when the practice was open, and how to access urgent care when the practice was closed.

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.

The practice engaged in regular, well attended multi-disciplinary team meetings to assess and support patients in reaching decisions about their end-of-life care. This identified that patients’ views had been sought and respected. We were assured that safeguards were in place to ensure that decisions were made which were in the person’s best interest.