Severn Valley Medical 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 practice met people’s needs, and that 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 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice endeavoured to make sure patients were at the centre of their treatment choices. Our review of clinical records showed patients were involved in planning of their care needs. Feedback received by CQC indicated the majority of patients had confidence in the clinical staff. This was reflected in the results of the National GP Patient Survey which found 98% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment, which was above the national average of 92%.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of their patients, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. For example, the practice adjusted the delivery of its services to meet the needs of patients with a learning disability by providing longer appointments for annual health checks. We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

The National GP Patient Survey found 93% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment, which was in line with the national average. In addition, 70% of patients said they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses which was also in line with the national average.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual patient needs. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. The practice website included accessible online tools such as dyslexia friendly and translation. Information about the need to book for an interpreter was recorded on patient’s records and additional time was provided for appointments. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Within the practice waiting area, we observed a hearing loop facility was available for patients with hearing impairments and a range of health and wellbeing leaflets and posters were on display for patient information.

Patient feedback was collected through a variety of methods such as online, in person and through the NHS Friends and Family Test. Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey results demonstrated that 91% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment.

The practice had a complaints policy in place and complaints were reviewed to improve the quality of care. There were regular meetings where complaints and significant events were discussed to share learning to make improvements. Information about how to complain was readily available and patients could make a complaint in person, or via the practice website.

The practice had recorded 63 complaints between March 2024 and March 2025. We reviewed a random sample of complaints and found they had been handled appropriately.

As part of our assessment, we asked patients to ‘Give Feedback On Care’ about the practice. We received feedback from 318 patients of which 258 were positive about the care they received and 60 were negative. We received one patient complaint where the patient described dissatisfaction with the practice complaints process.

Staff provided us with examples of learning that had resulted from patient feedback. For example, following patient feedback, staff were instructed to ensure patients fully understood the referral process, including when a referral must be made via a specialty such as orthopaedics; to confirm and clearly communicate next steps and expected time frames with patients following a referral to avoid confusion; and to document patient discussions thoroughly to support clarity and transparency in referral decisions.

Patients were able to book appointments over the telephone and online. The practice had reviewed capacity and demand to identify how many on-the-day appointments were needed in relation to pre-bookable appointments and built the rotas accordingly.

Leaders were enthusiastic about the triage process operated in the practice. Staff explained they had been operating the triage model for 9 years. Two clinicians worked in the triage room with triage clerks and staff told us this facilitated the ‘right patient, right appointment, right time.’ Triage clerks had also received care navigation training to help to ensure patient appointments were booked with the most appropriate service.

The practice is open from 8:00am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday. Same day urgent appointments were available, and routine appointments could be booked in advance. ‘Enhanced Access’ appointments with a GP were also available outside of the usual practice opening hours and were available on weekends. The appointments were telephone consultations and were pre-bookable by contacting the practice during opening times.

Patient feedback was mixed with regards to their experience with access to the practice. We found that patient feedback regarding access to care and treatment was lower than national averages for how easy it was to get through to someone at their GP practice on the phone. The National GP Patient Survey reported that 33% of patients found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone which was below the national average of 50%.

In addition, 19% of patients reported they usually get to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, which was significantly below the national average of 40%; and 35% found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App which was below the national average of 45%.

As part of our assessment, we asked patients to ‘Give Feedback On Care’ at the practice. We received feedback from 318 patients of which 258 were positive about the care received from the practice and 60 were negative. The vast majority of negative feedback related to access to the service and patients complained about experiencing very long waiting times of 25 minutes or more on the telephone queues.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from patients via CQC’s ‘Give Feedback on Care’ process, the practice had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had arranged for extra staff to operate the phone lines during the busy period from 8:00am when the phone lines opened. In addition, staff told us they were in the process of planning educational sessions for patients in collaboration with the PPG, to support patients in registering and using the NHS App. Leaders told us they were also exploring a ‘total triage’ model in response to survey and telephony data to improve patient satisfaction. The practice was in the process of reviewing software and discussing the experiences of other practices currently using the total triage model.

The practice facilities at both sites were fully accessible to patients. Buildings were step-free for patients with full access for wheelchair users, including disabled parking bays and toilets.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this. Staff strived to always treat patients equally without discrimination and had undertaken training on learning disability and autism. Feedback provided by patients using the service, both to the practice as well as to CQC, was mostly positive.

As part of our ‘Give Feedback on Care’ process for this assessment, CQC received one complaint regarding the care and treatment of a patient with autism. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, they had processes in place to ensure people in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people could register at the practice.

Patients were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed healthcare decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Staff explained they did their best to be proactive in supporting patients to plan for the future. One of the GPs had been appointed as the palliative care lead and a palliative care register of patients was reviewed weekly. The GPs met regularly with district nurses and staff from a local hospice to discuss end-of-life care of patients.

Our records review showed patients 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 told us the practice had nominated a local hospice as their charity of the year to support and had set up a ‘Just Giving’ online fundraising page which was advertised within the practice.