Stock 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 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 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.

The practice made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. They decided in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The National GP Patient Survey 2024 found that 98% of respondents felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care. This was higher than local and national averages. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The practice sought to understand 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 their patient population. Leaders explained they met regularly with multi-agency staff to discuss and improve outcomes for people with complex needs. The practice was part of a primary care network (PCN), where they worked with other practices to improve the local health inequalities. Patients could book appointments by telephone, at the practice and online. Extended access appointments were also available at practices within the primary care network from 6.30pm – 8pm Monday to Friday and 9am – 4pm on Saturday. Home visits were available where required. Longer appointments were offered to patients with more complex needs. People in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice.

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

The National GP Patient Survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 116 responses. This found 96% of patients felt the healthcare professional they last saw had all the information they needed about them. This was slightly above the national and local averages. The practice had access to interpreter services and British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records on the practice website.

The practice enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice was part of a primary care network patient participation group and reviewed primary care network and GP survey feedback.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. We reviewed complaints and found all were managed in a timely manner. Learning from complaints and significant events was evident and changes were made and learning shared as demonstrated in meeting minutes reviewed.

The practice had a complaints procedure and a complaint’s form for patient use on their website.

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

The National GP Patient survey found 88% of respondents had a positive experience of contacting the practice, 86% found the reception and admin team to be helpful. 66% found it easy to contact the practice through their website and 80% found it easy to get through to the practice by phone.All of the responses were above the national and local average.

The practice is open from 8.00am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday, and patients have access to out of hours services in the weekday evenings and on Saturdays via the PCN extended access appointment system. Face to face and telephone appointments were available either as urgent or routine. Home visits were available when required.

Leaders told us the receptionists were trained in navigation and signposted patients to the appropriate appointment for their needs. The practice operated a duty doctor system to ensure timely patient care throughout the day. Staff told us there were enough appointments for their patient population and that the next urgent appointment was available on the day and the next routine appointment in 24 hours with booking open 4 weeks ahead. People could access the service to suit their needs. For example, online, in person and telephone access was available. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and the building was accessible for people in wheelchairs or with baby buggies.

The practice had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There was a clear process for identifying, recording and sharing information regarding significant events. Leaders and staff told us they knew how to identify and report concerns, safety incidents and near misses both internally and externally. They were able to discuss evidence of learning and dissemination of information and we observed these were discussed at significant event meetings. Staff spoken with and those who completed a questionnaire said they felt comfortable raising concerns and that there was both an open culture and an open-door approach.

The practice had a system in place to manage safety alerts. As part of our assessment, clinical record searches of the practice electronic system were undertaken by a CQC GP Specialist Advisor. These searches were visible to the practice. We reviewed a sample of patient records who may have been affected by a Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) alert and found a small number of patients had not been followed up and informed of any possible adverse effects of the medicine. The practice took immediate action to address this and made changes to ensure their process was more robust.

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.

The practice held frailty meetings to oversee the care and treatment of vulnerable patients. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation which were discussed with the patient and their family. This information was shared with other services when necessary.