The Pines 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. The practice complied with legal equality and human rights requirements. People were involved in decisions about their care. People were encouraged to give feedback which leaders used along with other evidence to improve services. The practice had made significant improvements to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People reported they could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People, carers, and staff could easily access information and advice. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 79 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. The patient participation group (PPG) were positive about their involvement with the practice and assured us any suggestions were taken seriously to improve patient care. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. People with caring responsibilities were identified and supported.

The practice held annual carers events in house, inviting carers to attend the practice, meet other carers and access local support services. Representatives from local organisations such as Age UK and the local Age Well services attended these events to promote their services. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals so they could access the most appropriate care. The practice had attained the local Northamptonshire Carers Silver Award for services to carers and was working towards the gold award.

The practice was an Armed Forces veteran friendly accredited GP practice. This meant that, as part of the health commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant, there was a dedicated clinician who had specialist knowledge of military related health conditions and veteran specific health services.

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.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice supported all residents at 2 local nursing homes, 2 local residential homes, 3 homes for people with learning disabilities and 1 children’s home. These services all received tailored support, including, if necessary weekly ward rounds with a dedicated GP. In addition, the practice employed a dedicated Care Home Care Coordinator who acted as a key point of contact for these services ensuring communication was streamlined and supporting effective patient care. In addition, the practice supported some residents in a further 10 homes including patients with learning disabilities, mental health concerns and brain injuries. Leaders advised patient choice was prioritised and they worked in partnership with these local services to support the best possible health care and outcomes for residents, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff told us information was available to patients in their reception area and on the practice's website. The practice website contained details on how to make an appointment, the services available, and resources.

In addition, the practice produced a monthly patient newsletter which was available in reception providing information on updates to services, staffing and changes.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. They would highlight in patients' records if they had any communication or accessibility needs; information which staff gathered when a patient registered and opportunistically. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. A hearing loop was available. Longer appointments were available to be booked if staff needed to use a translator, for neurodiverse people or people with a learning disability.

The practice was good at enabling people to share feedback, 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. The practice actively gathered patient feedback utilising the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT). We reviewed results between 1 April 2026 and 9 June 2026 and saw 100% of respondents described their experience as good or very good. A representative from the patient participation group (PPG) advised the practice engaged well with the PPG and they felt listened to and involved in decision making.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. We reviewed 3 complaints records and found no concerns with how the practice had managed them. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of people’s feedback, including complaints.

At our previous assessment, in January 2024, the practice scored lower than local and national averages in the national GP patient survey for questions relating to access (data collected between 1 January and 1 April 2023). For example, 44% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, in comparison to the national average of 50%. During this assessment, we found significant improvements had been made to patient satisfaction with access. Results of the national GP patient survey (data collected between 30 December 2024 and 1 April 2025) showed the practice performed above average for all areas relating to access. 62% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, in comparison to the local average of 44% and national average of 53%. 86% responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice compared to the national average of 70%.

Leaders advised they had made the decision to not adopt a total digital triage approach to their appointment system. They described how their patient population had a higher prevalence of elderly patients, of which a large proportion struggled to use digital technologies. To support patients with digital access, the practice worked with other services in the Primary Care Network (PCN) to deliver an upskilling event on the NHS App and online access. However, leaders advised their patients had not responded positively to the event. The practice had therefore invested in recruitment and training staff to improve access. Although patients could make routine requests using digital online forms, the majority of patient contact was made over the telephone, including requests for urgent care. Leaders were concerned that some patients may use the digital triage in error to request urgent care and had therefore developed systems to ensure all digital requests were also reviewed and triaged daily, to avoid any missed emergencies. They had increased their administrative and clinical team, expanding both GP availability and the minor illness service through recruitment of an additional advanced nurse practitioner. Supplementary clinics were held as needed to reduce waiting times and staff had been upskilled to support extra service delivery as needed. For example, a care navigator had been trained in phlebotomy to support during annual leave, sickness and other busy periods. Various appointment types were available such as in person, online and telephone consultations. 

In addition, the practice had increased flexibility, with additional Saturday clinics , in addition to their core hours and the contracted extended access service for patients. On Saturdays the nursing team offered specialised clinics focused on NHS health checks, smears, diabetes, COPD, asthma, vaccinations, with the GPs offering heart failure and dementia clinics. During seasonal flu and Covid vaccination programmes the practice offered what they referred to as ‘Super Saturdays’, which were clinics staffed by 7-10 clinicians with admin support and volunteer support, regularly vaccinating over 800 patients in a day. Further early morning and evening appointments had also been introduced for patients who could not attend on Saturdays. Clinical staff also worked on their non-working days to offer mid-week clinics or to support the vaccination of care home residents and patients who were unable to leave their homes.

The practice had also worked with other local services to improve patient choice and increase appointment availability. For example, the practice had arranged blood pressure and contraception clinics with a local pharmacy. This had improved access to in house nursing appointments with more appointments available for chronic disease management, for instance.

The service made sure that 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. Digital requests could be made online throughout the day. Extended access appointments were available weekday evenings and at weekends via the local GP Federation arrangements. The practice was all ground level and was accessible for wheelchair users.

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

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was largely positive. Results of the National GP patient survey 2025, found 80% of patients surveyed responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice, compared to the national average of 75%. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. 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. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

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. Records reviewed, showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care. Staff spoke with kindness and compassion about how the information for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms was gathered. They documented decisions made by patients about cardiopulmonary resuscitation on these ReSPECT forms and patient records and ensured these were reviewed and updated at least annually. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Patients and their relatives were also sent a digital link prior to the appointment to discuss ReSPECT forms, which provided information on the process, guidance, a leaflet and a video guide. There was also a template form that provided an explanation of what each section of the ReSPECT form meant, guiding them on what they may want to consider when completing it. The link was also shared with care homes to distribute to families as needed.

The practice had developed an end-of-life pack that was shared with patients and their families providing useful information such as local services, practical support with death certification and what to expect guides for the various stages of end of life. Palliative patients were discussed during monthly multi-disciplinary meetings. Information was available in the staff area to ensure these patients received priority support if needed.