Selborne 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 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.

Selborne Road Medical Centre made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider operated a mixture of urgent and pre-bookable appointments and home visits were available at the discretion of a GP for those patients who could not attend the practice, thereby ensuring their continuity of care.

Patient feedback to the CQC regarding access to services was positive and this was consistent with the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey which showed that the provider performed above the national average in a number of areas and that people could access medical care when they needed it and in a way that suited their needs.

For example, in the 2026 survey:

• 92% of respondents described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 73%.
• 94% of respondents responded positively to how easy it easy it was to contact this service on the phone, compared to a national average of 57%: and
• 88% of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, compared to a national average of 69%.

The same survey also reported that 79% of respondents stated that they were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make an appointment, (compared to a national average of 57%), and that 88% of respondents described their overall experience of this GP practice as good, (compared to a national average of 77%).

The treatment rooms were located on the ground floor, with a ramp available at the main entrance to help ensure easy access to the service. Baby changing facilities were available on site for patients and visitors. Although the building did not have automatic doors and there was limited parking available on site, additional on-street parking was available nearby. The reception area did not have a hearing loop in place to support patients with hearing impairments. For patients with mobility issues or those using wheelchairs, the rear entrance could be used if required to provide improved access to the premises.

Staff and leaders at Selborne Road Medical Centre actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this.

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 to address any local health inequalities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made appropriate 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. In the 3 months prior to our visit, no one had been refused registration at the medical centre, on the grounds of vulnerable circumstances.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, and during our assessment, we heard how compliments were monitored and shared with staff and how learning from complaints and significant events was also shared.

The medical centre was a member of the Safe Surgery scheme which meant that patients within their practice area who did not have a proof of identity or address could still register and that the provider did not ask for immigration documentation.

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.