Levenshulme Medical Practice

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, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.
 

This service scored 71 (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 showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. From the 2026 GP Patient Survey, 98% of respondents said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, compared with a national and local average of 92%.

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 practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

Staff had access to a dedicated focused care worker, provided by the local primary care network (PCN), who referred patients to community well-being support, such as the local Bee Well service. The worker provided direct help to patients and supported unpaid carers to make sure they received the right financial help and advice.

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

Information to promote screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Additionally, the practice helped to make visits easier for younger patients, by providing special books to explain medical procedures and help children and young people feel less nervous.

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.

Complaints were managed in a timely manner, with responses provided and apologies given where appropriate. Evidence showed that complaints were discussed in practice meetings and used as a learning opportunity and to improve the service.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Recently, the practice completed a quality improvement project to make access fairer for all patients. They made sure people who do not use computers or smartphones can still book appointments easily.

The practice offered extended appointments for people with a learning disability. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor.

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 proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. The practice understood the needs of the local area well. Staff were aware that a high number of their patients had diabetes. They also knew that many people moved into and out of the area often, meaning the patient list changed frequently. Staff used this knowledge to help tailor care to their community. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made changes to ensure all patients had similar experiences and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The practice was a gold-certified Pride in Practice establishment, and veteran friendly accredited.

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.

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.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The practice used an electronic sharing system to support coordination of care for patients approaching the end of life, which included the sharing of advance care planning decisions across services.

However, the practice could not show enough clear records about DNACPR decisions made for patients while they were in the hospital. Since the visit, the practice has committed to fix these record-keeping issues.