East Lynne 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 75 (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 in line with the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could always 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, 76% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to an England average of 73%. 62% of respondents to the survey expressed satisfaction with accessing the practice by phone which was comparable to the England average of 57%. The practice leaders told us that the practice had moved to a total triage system with an online appointment request system. Staff spoken with told us that all appointment requests were triaged to ensure people with the highest clinical need were prioritised appropriately, with the process being continuously monitored and reviewed on a daily basis. Staff spoken with told us access was determined by patient need and they had a clear system of red flag alerts for children and vulnerable patients, and a further system where the triage clinician determined need. Staff spoken with told us they worked to accommodate people. For example, patients could call the practice, walk in, or use the online booking system. If they were unable to complete the appointment form, reception staff would support them to do this. All methods would result in a triage form being completed and sent to the triage team. GP enhanced access appointments were available Monday to Friday from 6.30pm – 8pm and Saturday 9am – 3pm. All enhanced access was held at the practice.

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. The practice was accessible for wheelchair users or baby buggies.

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 and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. The practice was in an area of the highest patient deprivation and need. The staff team understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. One of the GP partners at the practice was chair of the local primary care advisory consortium which worked to shape the referral pathways for patients across the Tendring area, with the core aim of reducing health inequalities. For example, the consortium had helped to shape the interface between primary and secondary care and was involved in the standardisation of a referral pathway for tuberculosis due to the high-risk demographic within the Tendring area. Leaders spoken with provided documentation to explain how they had worked cross organisationally to simplify pathways into secondary care to help ensure continuity and patient safety in shared care. Additionally, Leaders told us they had been involved in securing a GP with an Extended Role (GPwER) to support the specialist referral pathway for gastroenterology patients by adding clinical capacity and a clear interface between primary and specialist care. Documents reviewed showed additional referral pathways had been developed to support the identification of at risk patients to help ensure timely care and treatment. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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.