Hampton 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our previous assessment on 30 November 2023, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement. At this assessment, we assessed all 7 quality statements from this key question, and the rating has changed to Good.

We found staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements.

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.

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.

Staff assessed what mattered to people individually, including cultural context, communication preferences and their wider needs. Patient’s individual sensory needs were accommodated, such as having a quiet room available for people who needed or preferred a quieter environment.

Patient’s care plans were completed in a personalised and sensitive way, reflecting individual priorities. Staff ensured Ramadan fasting advice was available to support Muslim patients with diabetes.

The practice partnered effectively with other organisations and initiatives such as a specialist programme supporting patients experiencing domestic abuse, and an initiative promoting safe access for people who may face barriers due to immigration status or fear of registering as a patient.

Systems were in place to help ensure patents were supported to express their views where appropriate, such as through signposting to local advocacy services. These partnerships and arrangements supported patients to express their views and underpinned their safe and personalised care and treatment.

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.

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

Interpreter and translation services were available and promoted on the practice website. People’s communication requirements, including those relating to spoken language and sign language were recorded so staff could arrange suitable support. A hearing loop was in place in the reception area to assist patients who were deaf or hard of hearing. We saw examples including a double appointment which was arranged to ensure safe and effective communication. The practice’s website also included translation functionality so information could be viewed in different languages.

The service provided information in accessible written formats, in line with the NHS Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Large‑print versions of the registration and online‑access forms were available for people with visual impairment, and easy read materials supported people with learning disabilities or lower literacy. Patients were given clear guidance on how to access their medical records and how to use the NHS App.

We also saw examples of personalised information offered following life events or clinical enquiries, including signposting a bereaved patient to NHS bereavement resources.

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.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints and the identification of significant events to improve safety.

The service listened to people’s views and involved them in shaping improvements. It engaged regularly with its patient participation group, both at practice level and with neighbouring practices, and used patient survey feedback to guide changes.Feedback from the national GP Patient Survey showed at our previous inspection 53% said it was easy to get through to the practice by phone at that time. In response, the practice introduced an improved telephony system, and the most recent survey results showed this had increased to 67%, demonstrating a positive impact on patient’s telephone access.

The service also took action to improve people’s experience of communication with staff by delivering communication training within its teams, and a focus on confirming patient understanding. Survey data again showed improvements since our previous inspection. The results were higher than both local and national averages:

• 89% of patients said the healthcare professional was good or very good at listening to them (higher than local and national averages).
• 87% reported they were treated with care and concern (also higher than local and national averages).
• 94% had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to (above local and national averages).
• 84% rated the overall experience of the practice positively and reported that reception and administrative staff were helpful (higher than local and national averages).

The practice demonstrated that it listened to people, acted on their feedback and made measurable improvements to the quality of patient experience.

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

The practice’s overview of appointment types showed it offered an appropriate range of clinical and non‑clinical appointments, aligned to urgency and designed to support people’s individual needs and preferences. Longer appointments were provided where required, for example for people with a mental health condition or a learning disability.

People could access the service in ways that suited their lifestyles and needs, such as online, in person and by telephone. The practice used internal data to monitor the availability of face‑to‑face appointments, home visits, telephone consultations and remote clinical advice. A report shared with us showed all these formats were being provided, helping ensure patients received an appointment type appropriate to their needs or preferences. Staff could also analyse patterns of demand to support service planning.

The practice worked with its Primary Care Network (PCN) to coordinate service delivery across the locality, including ensuring specialist GP input for diabetes for patients who needed this. Social prescribers were based within the practice to support people in accessing non‑clinical services and community resources.

Staff and leaders considered 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.

The service sought to identify and reduce barriers affecting people’s experiences of care and worked collaboratively with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to address health inequalities. Staff provided support for people who may face additional challenges linked to immigration status, social exclusion, or insecure living circumstances.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff identified carers and invited them proactively for their free flu vaccination, offering opportunistic appointments where appropriate. It also provided tailored support for people with severe mental illness by ensuring staff were available to encourage attendance for essential monitoring, such as blood tests. In addition, patients with learning disabilities and those who missed appointments were actively followed up to promote engagement and ensure they received timely reviews of their care and treatment.

Most of the practices clinical performance data was at or above local and national averages. Staff used data to focus on actions to support and improve equitable outcomes, such as encouraging uptake of cervical cancer screening and childhood immunisations for those patients that had not yet done so.

The practice strengthened its routine invitation and recall processes providing additional follow‑up for patients who did not respond, including offering flexible appointment options, and monitoring childhood immunisations and cervical screening uptake.

Regarding cervical screening, the practice ensured access to a female nurse, the option to attend with a companion, and information in multiple languages. Clinicians also provided opportunistic education during consultations and at Primary Care Network women’s health events. Systems ensured that any abnormal findings were promptly flagged for recall. The practice followed up when colposcopy services reported non‑attendance to encourage patients to remain in the screening pathway, reminded postnatal patients to book their screening, and referred individuals unable to undergo cervical screening in the practice to secondary care to ensure continued access to testing.

Unverified practice data (05 February 2026), with around two months remaining in the reporting year, indicated cervical screening uptake was 79% for women aged 25-49 and 86% for women aged 50-64.

During our previous inspection, four out of five childhood immunisation indicators were below World Health Organisation (WHO) based targets for children aged two and five. At this assessment, the practice continued targeted work to raise uptake for the one remaining indicator below the WHO target, relating to ensuring that children aged five receiving both doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The practice had also exceeded three WHO‑based childhood immunisation targets for children aged one and two, demonstrating sustained progress in improving uptake overall.

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. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. 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.

We also saw that staff recorded identity‑based and sensory needs, including preferred pronouns for transgender patients and sensory preferences for children with learning disabilities, enabling care to be tailored to reduce the risk of unequal experiences or outcomes.

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.

Universal Care Plans included individuals’ advance preferences, ensuring staff had up‑to‑date information to guide future care. The practice recorded people’s wishes regarding DNACPR, organ donation, and treatment‑escalation decisions, and this information was shared with other services when needed.