Park Road Medical Centre

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 79 (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 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 92% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national and local average of 75% and 79% respectively.

In addition to this 94% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by phone compared to the local and national results of 61% and 53% respectively. Staff felt this was a result of their responsiveness via other means (i.e. online response rates) so people felt confident contacting them via alternative means so phone lines were less busy.

In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. This included the service widening their clinic times which reduced waiting times for people.

The service had appointment times reflective of the populations need. This included offering extended opening times from 7.30am one day a week to accommodate their working population patients.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience. They had developed a comprehensive “geomap (a process of using data to create a map that helps to identify important trends) and risk stratification tool. These highlighted clinical, demographic and geographical signals which they used to identify patients most at risk of developing long term or any other conditions.

For example, staff had established processed to support people who needed support with mental health including those who were waiting to access specialist mental health support. Initiatives included the GP taking blood at the practice so they did not have to go elsewhere or wait.

Feedback from people who had attended this clinic was overwhelmingly positive, with people describing it as a “lifeline” and an “invaluable service”. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. If the person had a mobile phone or email address they could register and have all correspondence sent to the practice. Staff gave example of how this assisted homeless patients, for example those with long term conditions, as they could get letters from secondary care and mental health services to stay on track with monitoring their condition.

The practice had a dedicated email address for vulnerable patients. Patients could send requests or any other information that they needed the practice to review.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive.

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.