Market Square 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 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.

The service performed in line with the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the service’s website. For example, 80% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%. Since the inspection, GPPS have published new results, in July 2026. The new data suggests consistent performance, with 82% of people responding positively.

One of the partners showed us how they oversaw the availability of appointments throughout the day, moving clinicians off clinical tasks so that they could see patients when there was high demand for appointments. A number of staff told us that the practice was overstaffed wherever possible to ensure that there was good reception cover and access to appointments.

There was an effective triage process. A patient explained how the practice ‘gets the judgement right [so patients] get to see the right person. Sometimes you do need to see a doctor and they know that’. A care home representative praised the responsiveness of the practice and explained that the doctor would come out when requested, avoiding the use of 111 or an ambulance.

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. The practice had developed guidance to support patients when they were referred through Right to Choose for ADHD and autism diagnosis as it was identified that patients sometimes found the process difficult to navigate.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

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.