• Doctor
  • GP practice

Fairfield Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Lower Road, Great Bookham, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT23 4DH (01372) 455450

Provided and run by:
Fairfield Medical Centre

Assessment report published 15 May 2026

On this page

Responsive

Good

12 May 2026

We looked for evidence the practice met patient’s needs, and staff treated patients 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.

Person-centred Care

Score: 3

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.

Care provision, Integration and continuity

Score: 3

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.

Providing Information

Score: 3

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Listening to and involving people

Score: 3

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.

Equity in access

Score: 3

The practice made sure patients could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Direct feedback to CQC highlighted patients found it easy to make appointments. The practiced performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed patients could access the practice when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the practice’s website. For example, 93.1% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of this practice was being good, compared to a national average of 75%. In response to feedback from patients who used the practice, staff had made changes to improve access. The practice recognised that most patients preferred to book appointments by telephone rather than online. Leaders ensured that, during busy periods, additional staff were available to manage calls and that they were appropriately trained to triage patients and direct them to the most suitable clinician, such as a GP, nurse, pharmacist, or paramedic.

Systems and processes were in place to identify patients who may need extra support. This included alerts on patients records to show what support they needed with communication, such as interpreters.

Treatment rooms were available on both the ground floor and first floor which could be accessed via a lift or stairs. A ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the practice.

Equity in experiences and outcomes

Score: 3

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this. For example, patients whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, such as those with a learning disability, were offered appointments at quieter times.

Staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patient’s experience and worked with local services, 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 patient’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from patients who used the practice, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from patients who used the practice, which was positive.

Planning for the future

Score: 3

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.