Horsmans Place Partnership Also known as Horsmans Place 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 requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

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.

People received care and treatment that was person-centred and reflected their individual needs and preferences. Staff knew patients well and demonstrated a commitment to involving them in decisions about their care.

The service identified people who may benefit from additional support and referred them to appropriate services, including social prescribing link workers. This helped people to access a range of resources to support their health and wellbeing.

The service adapted its services to meet the needs of different groups. This included providing targeted services for example physiotherapy, wound care, minor surgery, extended hours, phlebotomy and women's health services. The service also took steps to support patients whose first language was not English, for example providing access to interpreting services, helping to ensure care was accessible and responsive to their individual needs.

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 service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population.

The service attended multidisciplinary meetings, including frailty, learning disability, district nursing, childhood immunisation service and safeguarding meetings. Staff told us this helped ensure care was coordinated effectively and that patients' wider health, social and practical needs were considered when planning and delivering care.

The service told us it had established referral pathways to specialist respiratory and diabetes services, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), rehabilitation, and community diabetes specialist nurses. Staff told us these pathways improved access to specialist support, reduced delays in treatment and supported positive outcomes and continuity of care across services.

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

The service provided people with information in a range of formats to support them to understand and manage their health needs. Information was available through the services’ website, text messaging services, patient leaflets and direct discussions with clinical and non-clinical staff. Staff told us they tailored information to people's individual needs and signposted patients to relevant local and national support services where appropriate.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Staff told us they identified and recorded people's communication needs and took steps to help ensure information was provided in a format they could understand. This included access to translation and interpretation services, large-print documents and other communication support where required.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The service shared examples of how feedback from people using the service had been used to drive improvements. Changes made included replacing chairs in the waiting area, moving the collection box to a more convenient location, and improving the appearance and maintenance of the building and surrounding environment.

However, we found that information displayed in the waiting area explained how people could make a complaint but did not include relevant contact details. Contact details were available on the service’s website. Following our feedback, the service updated the information provided.

We reviewed complaint records and saw that the service had a system to respond to and learn from complaints. The service acknowledged where improvements were needed and implemented changes. For example, following a complaint relating to a miscommunication, staff received feedback and guidance to reduce the risk of a recurrence. Records demonstrated that the service acted in accordance with the duty of candour by being open and transparent with the complainant and explaining the actions taken in response to the concerns raised.

However, the process was not fully in line with regulatory requirements. We reviewed 5 complaints; in 2 cases, the individual wished to make a formal complaint and the service resolved the matter by telephone, which is permitted under the regulations, but only when the complainant has agreed to this approach. We did not see evidence that this agreement had been recorded. Whilst complainants were satisfied with the service's response, none of the 5 complaint records reviewed contained evidence that they had been informed of their right to refer their complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) if they remained dissatisfied with the outcome.

The service conducted a patient survey at the beginning of June 2026 to gather feedback on what the service does well and areas for improvement. However, the findings were not available at the time of this assessment.

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

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and the service had a ramped entrance for easy access.

The service offered extended hours appointments from 7am to 8am every day and 6.30pm to 8pm every Wednesday and Friday.

The service used an online consultation tool as the main method for patients to request appointments. This worked as a triage system enabling the service to manage appointment requests. However, people could still request appointments through alternative methods such as through the NHS application, telephone, or in person. People were asked to provide information about their health concern which was then always reviewed by a clinician who assessed their needs and would direct them to the most appropriate service or clinician. Staff told us this helped ensure patients received the most appropriate care from the most suitable healthcare professional and within an appropriate timeframe. Staff also reported receiving positive feedback from people regarding the system and their experience of accessing care.

People who were unable to complete the online form were offered assistance from reception staff, either face-to-face or over the phone, to ensure they could access care and support.

The service had improved capacity and access arrangements. The online consultation form was now available during core opening hours from 8:00am to 6:30pm.

The service monitored performance data for the triage system which we reviewed as part of this assessment. We saw that clinical requests were triaged within 1 hour and administrative requests within 6.8 working hours. This was within their target of 1 working day.

During our assessment, we looked at the service’s appointment system. The next routine face-to-face and telephone appointment with a GP was 30 June 2026 and the next available routine appointment with a nurse was 1 July 2026. Routine appointments could be booked 2 weeks in advance. Staff told us they ensured emergency appointments were available for patients who needed to be seen urgently.

Results from the national GP Patient Survey showed an improvement in people’s experience of contacting the service. The number of respondents to the GP Patient Survey 2025 who responded positively to accessing the service by telephone had improved to 33%. Following the assessment, the 2026 survey results were published and showed a further improvement, with 47% of respondents reporting it was easy to contact the service. Although this remained below the national average of 57%, the results demonstrated an upward trend in peoples’ experience of contacting the service by telephone.

In addition, the GP Patient Survey (2025) showed that 41% of respondents reported a positive overall experience of contacting the service. Following the assessment, the 2026 survey results were published and showed an improvement, with 78% of respondents reporting a positive experience. This was above the national average and indicated that peoples’ overall experience of contacting the practice had improved since the previous survey.

The service told us they monitored telephone performance data to assess access. Data provided by the service demonstrated improvements in telephone access during 2026, with average wait times reducing from approximately 10 minutes in July 2025 to under 4 minutes in June 2026. The number of calls answered within 30 seconds more than doubled over the period, increasing from 178 calls in July 2025 to 442 calls in June 2026. The service's data suggested people were experiencing shorter waiting times and improved access to the reception team.

Staff told us these improvements had been supported by changes to staffing and operational processes. The service had strengthened reception staffing by recruiting and training additional team members and adjusting staff rotas to provide increased cover during peak periods identified through analysis of call demand. In addition, the service had improved oversight of its telephone system by introducing a live call wallboard, which was monitored throughout the day. Staff explained this enabled leaders to identify increasing call queues in real time and redeploy staff to answer calls when required, helping to reduce waiting times and improve access.

To increase clinical capacity and further improve patient access, the service had also commenced recruitment of additional salaried GPs.

Staff told us these changes were informed by feedback received through the NHS Friends and Family Test, the Patient Participation Group (PPG) and informal patient feedback.

The service monitored its Did Not Attend (DNA) rates and identified they were higher than the national average in 2023. In response, it introduced an appointment reminder system in 2024. Leaders told us this resulted in a reduction in missed appointments, with DNA rates reducing by more than half between 2023 and 2026. Leaders said this helped maximise the use of available appointments, reduce wasted clinical capacity and improve access to services.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff told us they monitored demand and access and increased capacity when needed. They also explained that they were actively recruiting additional permanent staff as part of an ongoing recruitment drive.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in patient’s experiences and outcomes. For example, they offered longer appointments for patients with complex needs or communication difficulties and offered a quiet room for neurodiverse patients. They made information available in easy-read formats and leaflets to improve accessibility and support patients to understand information about their care and treatment.

There were processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

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.