Marazion 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 in March 2015, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains unchanged.

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records evidenced people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

Our review of clinical records confirmed that people were supported to understand their conditions and were actively involved in planning and decision-making regarding their care. Regular multi-disciplinary meetings were held with relevant professionals and services to discuss and plan person centred care and treatment so that people’s needs could be met holistically. Through regular appointments, staff developed meaningful relationships with people and adjustments were made to support those with additional needs, including offering longer appointments for people with a learning disability or other protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

The service liaised with and involved mental health teams, learning disability nurses and external agencies to co-produce care plans.

The service had access to social prescribing services, who provided people with a non-medical approach to improve health and wellbeing by connecting them to local community groups and activities.

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 people.

The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, building relationships with community groups to help facilitating of screening programmes.

We evidenced the appointment system and saw how staff encouraged continuity of care by enabling people to request and see the same healthcare professional. Staff worked collaboratively to meet the needs of people across all areas of the service.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages.

The service made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard.

Adjustments included: easy-read materials, interpreter services including British Sign Language, Interpreter services, translated materials.

The services’ website contained health promotion information, including details on NHS Health Checks, screening programmes, maternity care, and contraception.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of feedback from people who use the service. The service monitored complaints and identified themes and trends.

Information on how to provide feedback or make a complaint was clearly displayed on the service website. People could raise concerns in person, in writing, or by email, and those who did were listened to and received a timely response. We reviewed a sample of complaints received by the service and found they were handled in line with the provider’s policy and responded to appropriately. Records also showed there were clear records maintained of all complaints received, the actions taken, outcomes, learning and being open, honest, and transparent in responses to complaints.

The service used the NHS Friends and Family Test as a means of gathering feedback from people who used the service. We evidenced they received between 250 to 500 responses per month. In November 2025, they received 378 responses, of which 366 were very good or good; 2 were fair; 2 neither good or bad and 2 poor or do not know. Feedback was reviewed and analysed with reports developed outlining feedback and considerations for changes.

Changes were made in response to patient feedback. For example, supporting people with the newly implemented telephone system.

Feedback from the patient participation group (PPG) was constructive. The service was responsive to requests for data and communication, replying promptly to messages and were working collaboratively with the PPG to make the group effective.

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

The service offered on-the-day appointments with GPs, Advanced Nurse Practitioners, GP Registrars and Minor Illness Nurse.

The service offered appointments that could be booked up to two weeks in advance with GPs, Advanced Nurse Practitioners and GP Registrars. These were released and available to book at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 working days before the appointment time. These appointments were protected and were released in stages, so that they were not used inappropriately or overfilled; the team leader on reception could over-ride this if deemed clinically appropriate.

People could choose whether they had a face-to-face consultation or a telephone consultation. Patient advisors (reception staff trained in care navigation) guided people on whether a telephone call was likely to not be clinically appropriate. For example, whether a physical examination may be required.

The service offered appointments with their Minor Illness nurse, for people who met the criteria. People who used the service could be referred to a First contact Physiotherapist, Clinical Pharmacist and Consultant Geriatrician, who offered appointments on site.

People could access appointments with the Mental Health Wellbeing Team (set up by the primary care network) based in Penzance, St Ives, Hayle and Marazion.

Feedback provided to CQC, in relation to access, was positive. People told us they had a good experience accessing appointments. One person stated “I have just had a series of appointments recently at my GP practice. My appointments are timely, appropriately responsive, and extremely helpful in addressing my needs.”

The National GP patient survey 2024, identified that 95.5% of patients responded positively to the overall experience of contacting the GP practice, and the percentage of people who responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice by telephone was 87.1%. This data was above the national averages or 69% and 52%, respectively.

Feedback from members of the community about the provider were positive.

People could access the service to suit their needs. For example, online, in person and by telephone. In a survey conducted by the service in November 2025, people commented “Phone at 8 am ask to see a nurse or doctor and get in same day, perfect” and “Short wait for a non-urgent appointment”.

To ensure people with learning disabilities had regular annual health checks and reviews, the service team made personal phone calls to book appointments. This promoted maximum flexibility when planning their appointment, as well as the service team being able to follow up those who do not attend. Appointments for these people were longer, and they could be supported by carers (where appropriate).

The service had systems to monitor access. Including audit, patient feedback and identifying trends in complaints relating to access and patient outcomes.

The service provided extended access on Tuesdays between 6.30 pm-8 pm. Appointments were available with a range of clinicians, including GPs, nurses, and healthcare assistants, depending on service demand and were either face to face or telephone appointments.

As part of the local primary care network arrangements, people also had access to extended hours appointments provided on Saturday mornings. The service provided face-to-face, telephone or online consultations to support people’s choice and convenience. Information regarding extended and enhanced access was publicised via the service’s website.

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

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Leaders and staff proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations to address any local health inequalities. For example, referring young people with contraception needs to another GP service within the primary care network. This was because of the service having recognised they had a higher than average aging population and younger people would benefit from being able to access services more effectively for their specific needs.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff assisted people in registering for digital access, including offering digital inclusion support and tailored guidance for those less confident with technology. People who wished to register that did not have online access, could contact the service to complete a paper registration form, which was the same as the information submitted via the online portal.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

The service could accommodate people with sensory needs to wait in the quieter areas rather than the waiting room. The service considered and always tried to accommodate requests for preferred times of the day to assist those who preferred the quieter times.

We saw that digital flags were added to people’s records to ensure consistent and respectful care for people with specific needs, and who may need reasonable adjustments. For example, learning disabilities, autism, mental health conditions, deafness, and visual impairment.

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.

Staff attended multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss patients receiving end-of-life or complex care. Clinical records were updated to reflect any actions or changes made to their care plans. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care. Care plans documented a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision when it had been made (although these were currently part on an ongoing audit). Families and/or carers had been involved in these decisions when the person lacked the capacity to make them independently. This information was shared with other services, such as the out-of-hours services.