Norvic Family Practice Also known as Victoria Health Centre

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.

This service scored 68 (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. Staff had been trained in equality and diversity, consent, deprivation of liberty safeguarding and mental capacity.

Patient satisfaction scores in the GP National Patient Survey were in line with local and national averages, particularly in areas relating to patient-centred care. For example, 72% 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 in line with the local average of 74% and the national average of 75%.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters.

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.

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 did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Feedback from the GP National Patient Survey demonstrated that 81% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment. This was slightly below the local average of 85% and the national average of 87%.

We spoke with patients from the patient participation group (PPG) on the day of the onsite assessment and received mixed feedback on the care and treatment people received. Positive feedback was received about the care provided by the GPs, however patients commented on the difficulties in accessing the service and accessing appointments at the branch surgery in Norman Road.

The PPG told us that there were currently 5 patients in the group and 1 meeting had been held in the past 12 months. We were told that staff from the practice do not attend the PPG meetings and they have to be held at a local community centre as there is no room available at the practice. A PPG open day had been held recently to encourage patients to join the group, however the current members of the group were not consulted on the open day.

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

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.

The service had a range of systems in place to support access to care; however, patient feedback indicated that people did not always find it easy to access the service 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 36% of respondents found it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was lower than the local average of 53% and the national average of 57%. 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. Staff were available to support patients who were digitally excluded to complete the form. Feedback from staff demonstrated people in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode.

The practice had completed a review on telephone activity and service performance from January 2026 to July 2026. The audit was carried out to assess the accessibility and effectiveness of the telephone service and identify where further improvement may be required. The results of the audit showed in January the practice had answered 68.3% of calls received, this had increased to 80.0% in July, an increase of 11.7%. The practice had also seen improvements in waiting times for calls to be answered. The average wait time was reduced from 6 minutes 14 seconds in January to 4 minutes 36 seconds in July. The audit identified positive changes, however the practice recognised that there were still further areas for improvement.

Feedback from patients on the day of the onsite assessment, highlighted the difficulties patients faced in getting through to the practice on occasions. Patients who used the branch site at Norman Road told us they struggled to obtain appointments at the branch surgery and had to go to Victoria Health Centre, which caused difficulties for some patients as there were no direct bus routes to the main site at Victoria. We discussed this with the leadership team who told us that more appointments were offered at Victoria as there was limited space available at the Norman Road site. Plans were being discussed on how to increase room availability.

Appointments with a GP were available throughout the week. Extended appointments were available 2 evenings a week and for vulnerable people and those with a learning disability. Pre-booked appointments were available on weekday evenings and on Saturday through an arrangement with other local GP practices. 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.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, 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 were 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 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.

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.