Wallington Family 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation 17 (Good governance) and is no longer in breach.

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.

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. Clinicians recorded discussions and consent to demonstrate this. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

Results from the national GP survey 2025 showed 91% of participants felt, they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment local 92% and 91% national results.

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.

Many of the appointments with community specialists were offered within the same building so this was convenient for patients.

They practice told us they encouraged their patients to attend screening and educational services, such as diabetes education. Services such as diabetic eye screening were offered within the same premises.

At the previous inspection the practice had not complied with the Accessible Information Standard as patients were not asked on registration about any information and communication needs and how these could be met.

At this inspection the practice explained they were now using a standard NHS England registration form and patients were able to inform the practice about their requirement(s), and this was coded on patient records for example communication needs.

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

Data from the GP Patient survey 2025 showed that 59% of patients found it easy to contact the service using their website. This was in line with the local58% and national averages of 51%. Staff told us that they were working on improving information displayed on the notice boards around the practice.

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. 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. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

At the previous inspection we identified that complaints were not being acknowledged in line with national guidance (within 3 working days). At this inspection we reviewed three complaints in detail and saw they had been acknowledged within three working days. We also reviewed the complaints log, and it was managed in line with our expectations.

We reviewed 3 complaints and found the process to be satisfactory. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. The complaints policy was available on the practice website and included information for patients about how to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The practice manager told us that they had planned to develop further in terms of exploring learning and identifying trends and themes to prevent recurring complaints. The practice had created a policy called pausing before taking action to aid with this process.

At this inspection, we found the practice had improved access, by offering more appointments, however it was still an area that required development.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice had things in place to ensure patients could access the service. This included a hearing loop and wheelchair accessible premises. They had access to interpreting services and could provide information in large print for patients if required.

The most recent GP Patient Survey data showed 44% of patients found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, which was lower than the local average 61% and national average of 53%. The practice was aware of the slightly lower score and were working with the PPG to gather feedback on how they could improve this as well as monitoring their phone system. The practice explained access has been an issue and they were looking at how this could be improved, they reviewed on the day appointments to ensure a good mix of appointments to accommodate patient’s needs.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

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 positive. For example, patients told us that despite physical disabilities they could still access the building. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

All staff had completed the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism. To meet the need of patients with learning disabilities and autism they allotted extra time/double appointments if required and also offered annual health checks.

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. 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.

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.

Staff kept a palliative care register and told us patients were reviewed according to their needs and discussed during practice staff meetings. The service had processes in place to review if care and preferences had been met, in line with patients wishes.