Brewer Street Surgery Also known as Brewer Street 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 peoples 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.

People we spoke with told us they found obtaining an appointment straightforward and usually reasonably quick. The reception team were also positive about the appointment system and told us there was enough capacity to meet people’s needs. Results from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 to 2026 showed that 78% felt that it was easy to contact their GP by phone compared to 57% nationally. However, 40% of people found it easy to contact the service using their website. It was below the national average of 58%. Additionally, 32% of people found it easy to contact the service using the NHS App. This was below the national average of 54%.Appointments were available between 8am to 6pm. Emergency appointments were reserved each day for the most urgent cases received. Face to face appointments were typically 15 minutes for GP appointments and were available 6 weeks in advance. Nursing appointments were available 3 months in advance and appointment time was dependent on the clinical activity. The service used feedback from their PPG to ensure these arrangements were suitable.

At the time of our visit on the 7 May, the next face to face appointment was available on the 11 May and the next telephone appointment was on the 18 May. The next appointment with a nurse was on the 20 May.

Leaders used feedback to improve telephone access where possible. For example, feedback from the Friends and Family test included that people found it difficult to get through on the phone during the lunchtime period. In response, the service ensured there were more staff available during this time to answer calls

The service provided extended access appointments once a week on Wednesday, plus monthly on a Friday, and Saturday outside of normal working hours. The service carried out home visits for people who were unable to attend the service. These were undertaken by a GP or paramedic.

The service acknowledged that access and waiting times were a theme in their feedback. The service wanted to expand on their online services and had introduced an online consultation service which they were trialling for administrative tasks such as sick note requests.

Staff and leaders 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.

Leaders and staff proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience and address local health inequalities.

The service held a register of people with a learning disability and ensured that frequent contact was maintained so that needs were met promptly. The LD lead received specific training in LD awareness and Autism, and they were responsible for co-ordinating the LD register. They ensured that appointments were offered at a suitable time and that annual health reviews were scheduled and attended. The service had achieved 100% uptake for annual LD reviews.

Staff ensured that people had their social needs met. They were aware of social circumstances for the LD population. For example, they identified an unsuitable housing situation for a person who was sharing a property with 7 other adults. This was raised with the relevant housing authority and resolved. Birthday cards were sent to people to ensure that people with a learning disability did not feel socially isolated. The LD lead would see people for walk in appointments and accompanied them to other appointments in the service such as screening procedures and appointments with the GPs so that they were advocated for and supported in describing their needs.

The LD lead introduced hospital passports in the service setting. These were documents that people with a learning disability could use to describe their needs and preferences for their care. These documents were used in hospital environments as well. The LD lead worked with the LD liaison nurse at the local NHS acute hospital trust so that they could provide coordinated care for people with a learning disability when hospital appointments were scheduled. This meant that support needs could be planned for.

Staff identified people with cognitive conditions (such as dementia) early in their diagnosis and were aware of the changing needs for these people when accessing care. For example, reception staff identified an individual who would frequently attend the service without an appointment and demonstrated confusion when they arrived. This was escalated and leaders recognised the health needs for the individual had changed. They adjusted services and enabled them to have walk in appointments with the GP to ensure their symptoms were not worsened by confusion.

The service identified frequent attenders and implemented a structured plan to reduce attendance frequency. People identified as frequent attenders were given regular appointments with a plan to reduce the frequency over time so that they felt their needs were being met while managing the impact on the service. Where this wasn’t possible, the service escalated this internally to leaders.

The service acted on feedback and adjusted support positive experiences for all people who used the service. For example, the service had received feedback from some people with a learning disability that they did not like to wait inside for their appointment. Adjustments were implemented which meant they were able to wait outside, and staff would call them when it was time for their appointment.

Leaders held a fortnightly multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT) for people who were housebound and with complex backgrounds.

The service made adjustments for people with communication barriers. People who did not speak English or have access to the internet could still access appointments. Translation services were available at the service, and a hearing loop was installed at the reception desk. Appointments could be booked without the internet using telephone services.

Staff ensured people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and travellers.

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.