Adelaide 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 practice 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, we focused on 2 quality statements relating to the key question Responsive: Equity in access and Equity in experience and outcomes. 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 practice made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The practice was open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday. Phones were staffed between 8.30am and 6.00pm. Outside those times, patients could book appointments with the local extended hours service, operating at 3 locations across the borough. These offered appointments between 6.30pm and 8pm on weekdays and from 9am to 5pm on Saturdays. In addition, Sunday appointments were provided by the Camden Bridging Access Service at 2 other locations in the borough.

The practice encouraged patients to book appointments using its online platform, which had been introduced in April 2026. The system could be accessed between 8.00am and 5.30pm. Appointment booking requests were triaged by a duty GP. Patients without digital access could contact the practice by phone for assistance with bookings. We saw the practice had closely monitored the use of the online system since April. This included obtaining and reviewing feedback from patients and monitoring the system’s performance data. We saw 4 patients had submitted complaints to the practice regarding the system. We received feedback from 2 patients, who had experienced problems using the system, but others said it was easy to use and efficient. However, we were told the practice had found it necessary to replace the system, and its implementation was ongoing when we conducted our assessment. Staff told us the new system will have the potential to provide online (video) consultations, further improving patients’ access to the service.

Booked standard appointments were 15 minutes long, emergency appointments were 10 minutes, and complex care appointments were 20 minutes. Double length complex appointments could be booked for care reviews for people with a learning disability, dementia, mental health needs, or those with communication issues. Health check appointments were 30 minutes long.

The practice offered face to face and telephone appointments. Home visits were provided in appropriate circumstances, according to clinical need. The practice provided services to 2 local care homes, which a GP and physician assistant visited routinely on a weekly basis and in urgent circumstances. Clinical meetings with the care home staff and other agencies involved in people’s care took place monthly. We spoke with the home managers who were positive regarding the practice’s service.

The practice performed better than local and national averages in the 2026 National GP Patient Survey in relation to being a responsive service. This showed people could access the practice when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the practice’s website and the NHS App. Patients were positive regarding their experience of contacting the practice and felt they waited the right amount of time for their last appointment.

Patient feedback we received was also very positive regarding the practice being responsive to people’s needs. Most patients said the practice website was easy to use for booking appointments and reordering prescriptions. Appointments were available quickly, including those for same day urgent matters. Reception staff assisted when needed with issues relating to the online booking system. Patients told us the practice was good at communicating, with emails being answered promptly and that referrals were made quickly.

The practice made reasonable adjustments to services for patients who might have additional needs. Staff had received relevant specific training in this regard. The practice website had an accessibility menu facility, which included a range of features such as increased font size and contrast changes to improve the experience of people with a visual impairment. It also had an auto-translate facility for patients whose first language was not English. We saw the practice offered a phone interpreting service, which included access to British Sign Language practitioners. An induction loop was available for patients with hearing impairment attending the premises. In addition, members of staff spoke a range of languages other than English. The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard, having easy read material on a range of topics available for patients with learning disabilities.

The single storey premises were generally accessible to, and had facilities for, people with mobility issues, with staff able to assist when needed. A ramp led up from street level and there was a small step at the threshold, for which a mobile rollout ramp was available to allow access for wheelchair users and people with reduced mobility.

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.

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, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Records confirmed staff had received relevant training, such as equality, diversity, inclusion, dementia awareness, and human rights. We saw evidence of the practice’s outreach programmes targeting groups which might have specific healthcare issues.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care. They followed processes to ensure people, including those in vulnerable circumstances, access healthcare. For example, there were arrangements in place to provide services to homeless people, who could register at the practice address, and to visitors to the local area who were able register as temporary patients. Patients gave us very positive feedback. They mentioned that the appointment types offered were appropriate to patients’ needs; that the practice took patients’ concerns seriously, and it was proactive in chasing up referrals. Patients said they had trust in the staff and the practice worked collaboratively with them.

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.