Norwood 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 the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last inspection, 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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider and to CQC, was mostly 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 service worked closely with the local social prescribing team to explore a person’s wider social, emotional, and practical situation so that they could better access services. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, the service had a high population of older people and they were aware that telephone access using digital systems could be a challenge.

The building and premises were physically accessible for patients with mobility needs or disabilities. There were 2 lifts across the building and further equipment to help people overcome barriers and ensure equal access. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor.

The service performed mostly in line and at times higher than both local and national averages in the results of the National GP Patient Survey 2026. For example, 78% of respondents described their overall experience of contacting the services as good (local result:78%, national result:77%). In addition, 58% of respondents reported that it was easy to contact their GP practice by phone (local result:57%, national result:57%) and 78%find the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful (local result:57%, national result:57%). The management team monitored the results of the National GP Survey 2026 in terms of patient access. A report shared with CQC showed they had reviewed each of the results to identify what worked well and what could be improved. An action plan had been developed in response to the results.

Feedback shared with CQC from people using the service was very positive about their experience accessing appointments and services.

The leadership team monitored information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. For example, patient surveys and feedback from patients which was positive or negative was used to tailor the care, support and treatment patients received. We heard that staff treated people equally and without discrimination and a number of examples were discussed to demonstrate this.

People who used the service had equal opportunities to access reviews of their care, treatment and medicines, this included health screening. The service had processes to ensure all people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances. Appointments were available outside of school and usual working hours. People could access appointments online, over the telephone and in person. Digital flags were used within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present. The service had registers in place for people with a learning disability and annual checks were carried out to identify and address health issues early.

Feedback shared directly with CQC showed that patients were satisfied with their experiences and the services provided in terms of access.

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.