St Mary's 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 the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. For example, 82% of respondents felt it was easy to contact the provider by phone compared to a national average of 57% and a local average of 53%. 90% of respondent’s found reception staff helpful, compared to a national average of 85% and a local average of 81%. This showed people could access the service when they needed. For example, 83% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 73% and a local average of 68%. People we spoke to on the day of the site visit told us they could speak to a GP of their choice and found no concerns with contacting them. We found access to the building was good including for people who were wheelchair users.

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.

We found the appropriate procedures and processes were in place, so staff knew how to treat people equally and without discrimination. Staff told us they received the appropriate training, and we saw that this was being monitored. Where people’s first language was not English the provider had systems in place so patients could access translation type services. The provider also had staff who spoke a range of languages to support patients where necessary. The service worked closely within the local Primary Care Network (PCN) so they could gain support without any inequalities. The service referred people to other services like social prescribers and other specialist services to support people outside of traditional GP services. The provider understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and treatment. The provider carried out its own friends and family surveys to gather patients view on their services to be able to know where improvements were necessary.

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.