Scott Road 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. 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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. In partnership with a patient, they decided how to respond to any relevant changes in the patient’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Patients were involved in decisions about their care.

Staff reminded some patients (who may otherwise forget) about their booked appointment the day before to reduce stress for the patient and to ensure their health and wellbeing needs were met.

We received praise and positive feedback for Scott Road Medical Centre from a provider of a residential / nursing home about the person-centred approach to care and treatment provided to their residents. They told us, “The service we receive is exceptional.”

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service had a multidisciplinary team to manage diverse patient needs. The service utilised additional PCN roles to support its patients in respect of dementia, frailty, learning disability, mental health, and cancer care.

We saw the service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. Patients were directed to any relevant support groups and rehabilitation programmes available.

However, we did receive mixed feedback from providers of residential / nursing homes (whose residents received a service from Scott Road Medical Centre) about the ease of access to a face-to-face appointment with a GP for residents.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service recognised the demographic of its patients. The reception area had a self-check-in machine which showed information in both English and Polish. The service had access to interpreter services. Information leaflets and posters were available in other languages.

Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

The service had easy-read materials and resources available for patients with a learning disability.

Staff asked patients and carers about their communication preferences. They made contact with people using patients’ preferred method(s) of communication.

Some patients commented positively about the different ways they were able to contact the service, and the ease of the online booking system.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy.

Some staff told us they were not told about any learning from complaints. The service told us learning from complaints was shared with individuals involved. Learning was also shared more widely if there was a benefit to other staff.

The service had an active Patient Participation Group which represented the views of people using the service. Members of the group were free to raise agenda items and ask questions at the meetings.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. There was a ramp and an automatic door to the entrance.

The service visited patients at home when necessary. They provided reasonable adjustments for patients with a learning disability.

Patients could access the service in a way that best suited their needs. For example, online, in person, or by telephone.

The GP Patient Survey showed 50% of patients found it easy to get through to Scott Road Medical Centre by phone (which was lower than the national result of 53%). However, 56% of patients found it easy to contact the service using their website (compared to the national result of 51%). The survey showed 64% of patients described their experience of contacting the service as good (which was lower than the national result of 70%).

The service showed us their telephone answering data. The average telephone call wait time for patients in May 2025 was approximately 7 minutes. The service had a callback system which was used effectively.

Reception staff were qualified Care Navigators trained to signpost patients to the best care option.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by patients (both directly to the service and to CQC using ‘Give Feedback on Care’) was mostly positive.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector. The service was involved in a PCN project to address local health inequalities and identify unmet patient needs.

Staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support 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.

The service told us only 1 person had been refused registration at the service in the 3 months prior to our assessment. However, the patient was registered under the Special Allocation Scheme (SAS) which ensures people can receive necessary healthcare at designated practices.

People were supported to plan for important life changes so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service had appropriate policies in place relating to palliative care and patients reaching the end of their life. The service maintained a palliative care register. There was a process in place to ensure the register was accurate so staff could provide more appropriate and patient-focussed care to people.

Clinical staff had completed appropriate training on how to have effective and sensitive conversations with patients and their families about their wishes and preferences for emergency care.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.