Westminster 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 last assessment, we rated this key question as good. The rating remains good following this assessment.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practice received lower than average patient satisfaction scores in the national GP Patient Survey for some questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 71% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally and 85% locally) found the reception and administrative team helpful, 82% (compared to 92% nationally and 93% locally) said the healthcare professional had all the information they needed about the patient and 66% (compared to 75% nationally and 78% locally) described their overall experience of the practice as good. Feedback from patients indicating their needs being met at their last appointment was 91% which was in-line with local and national averages. The provider acted on the views of patients; however, they did not have an effective system to record all action taken and evaluate that the action taken had led to improved patient satisfaction in the areas identified in the national GP Patient Survey.

Feedback from people we spoke to and as shared in the NHS Friends and Family test showed a higher level of satisfaction with many examples shared of how staff had taken the time to make sure people’s needs were met and people were mostly complementary about staff in all roles.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to their work. The culture and ethos of the provider was to provide a good quality service and high level of patient satisfaction.

The provider told us how they involved people in their care to ensure they understood their condition, care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. They took a holistic approach to people’s well-being and referred, and sign posted people to services for support with issues impacting on their health such as loneliness, finances and housing.

The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

Information about peoples’ care and treatment needs was available and shared between services when required. Referrals to other services were made promptly and information shared by other services was managed effectively.

Services were tailored to meet the needs of the population, the provider understood where improvements were needed and focused their resources accordingly.

Staff communicated and provided information in a way that helped people to understand their care. They told us how people were provided with information about their health and treatment options to enable them to make an informed decision.

Information was adapted to meet peoples’ specific needs, for example through the use of translation services for people who did not speak English as a first language. Support was provided for people who had difficulty using digital services. The provider had ordered portable electronic devices to further assist with this.

Safety netting advice was provided when patients were at risk of deteriorating health.

The practice website contained NHS information about health conditions and support services that people could use.

The provider monitored patient views through complaints, NHS Friends and Family Test and the national GP Patient Survey. Some scores for the national GP Patient Survey were below national and local averages. The provider had taken action to improve these scores in relation to access to appointments and had indicated the action taken on the website. However, they had not showed how they had addressed other areas where scores were lower that local and national averages.

Information was available at the service and online so that people knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to make a complaint. However, at the service this had to be requested from the reception team. This was addressed following the assessment. We reviewed a sample of complaints which showed a timely response and action taken.

Some responses to staff surveys were that staff did not feel they were informed about complaints or that learning from them was shared unless they were directly involved. The provider told us that there was a process to keep staff informed about complaints and any learning, however, they would take action to ensure all staff felt included in this.Following the assessment the provider told us they had introduced monthly meetings for the non-clinical staff where the outcome of complaints and significant event would be discussed.

People could make appointments online, over the telephone and in person. Consultations were face to face, on-line or by telephone and home visits were made in accordance with people’s needs. Appointments were offered on the same day and up to 2 weeks in advance. Extended hours appointments were offered every Tuesday morning and evening.In addition, the PCN provided clinics for women’s health every other Saturday, visited care home services to support the needs of older patients, supported the covid vaccination programme and reviewed patients with ADHD.

There were systems and processes in place to prioritise people presenting with the highest need. 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 reception team directed people to the most appropriate resources to meet their needs. Not all the reception team had received care navigation training, and the provider was addressing this.

The experience of people who used the service as indicated in the national GP Patient survey was below local and national averages for accessibility. The percentage of respondents to the national GP Patient Survey who found their overall experience of contacting the practice good was 55% (compared to 70% nationally and 70% locally). Contacting the practice by phone was reported as being easy by 29% of people (compared to 53% nationally and 52% locally). Contacting the practice by website was reported as easy by 17% of people (compared to 51% nationally and 49% locally). Responses for appointment wait times were in line with local and national averages with 67% of respondents (compared to 67% nationally and 71% locally) feeling they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment.

Healthwatch feedback from November 2024 to November 2025 showed there had been feedback from 9 patients with 8 providing negative feedback about telephone access and getting an appointment.

We spoke to 5 people during the assessment who provided positive feedback about accessing the service overall. They said that the reception staff were polite and helpful. They said there had been improvements to the service in the last 18 months which have resulted in quicker access to appointments, better phone access and referrals being done more promptly. They said they would like to have more available appointments when they ring the practice in the morning as the appointments get filled quickly. There were mixed views from the 5 patients as to getting a face-to-face appointment when requested.

The majority of staff spoken with told us they felt there were enough staff to meet the needs of patients.

The provider told us that they monitored access to ensure it continued to meet patients’ needs and introduced changes to improve access in accordance with the findings. For example, they monitored the number of telephone calls into the practice and had adjusted staffing levels accordingly. They had reviewed the type of appointments provided and introduced a new telephone system to provide a queue and call back function to reduce delays. They carried out their own in-house survey in July 2025 and January 2026 which received positive feedback overall. However, there was a low completion rate and only included people who had received a service, such as an appointment. The survey did not cover all the areas identifying as needing improvement in the national GP Patient Survey. The provider but did not have an effective system to evaluate that the action taken had led to improved patient satisfaction.Following the assessment the provider told us about the action they had and were planning to take.

Leaders addressed barriers to equity in people’s experience 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. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and they made adjustments to promote this. Staff had completed training in equality, diversity, and inclusion. We did not see evidence of discrimination when staff made care and treatment decisions.

People were provided with information to make informed decisions about their current and future care and treatment. People were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Staff told us how they communicated with external health and social care professionals to discuss supporting people receiving end of life care. The provider told us that they reviewed people who had been provided with end-of-life care to look at the quality of care they had received.