Nethergreen 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.

The service performed better than national averages 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, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 86% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as good, compared to the national average of 70% and 65% of respondents to the survey responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone, compared to a national average of 53%. Many patients reported through the NHS Friends and Family test that they were seen promptly by the service. The provider reviewed multiple sources of patient feedback and developed action plans to address areas for improvement. A key theme identified was access to appointments at 8am, and there were plans in place to promote online access to support this. In response to feedback from complaints and incidents, the provider also adjusted the release times for routine appointments to reduce the risk of errors and support patients requiring same-day access when booking online.

Although the building was 2 adapted Victorian terraced houses over 3 floors, treatment rooms were available on the ground floor when required, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service. Disabled facilities and parking were available.

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

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. For example, patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable such as those with a learning disability or dementia were offered longer appointments and at quieter times. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The service was registered as a Veteran Friendly practice. One of the GPs, with previous experience of working with the army, delivered educational sessions to staff to support their understanding of the specific needs of veterans. They were also registered as a “Safe Surgery” (a practice that has pledged to provide equitable access to healthcare for everyone in their community, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, such as migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and people experiencing homelessness) and those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable were supported to register. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the National GP Patient Survey and national Friends and Family feedback shared from people who used the service, which was mostly positive with many commenting that they were seen quickly.

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.