Ixworth 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.

This key question has been rated as good.

People received care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. The service ensured care was joined up and maintained continuity for people. The service provided information people could understand, and people were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access, which included physical access. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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 service 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.

Care home representatives gave positive feedback regarding how clinicians ensured care and treatment was centred around each person. Feedback from people demonstrated staff understood their individual needs, put them at ease and took them seriously.

Clinical staff told us during consultations they discussed relevant information, listened to people’s concerns and expectations, identified people’s needs and preferences and agreed a plan of care together which suited the person. People, and where appropriate, family members and carers were involved in care and treatment decisions. Clinical records we reviewed supported these findings.

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.

Leaders had a good understanding of the needs of the local population and could refer people, or people could self-refer, to a range of services which included physiotherapy and mental health services. The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, the service held multidisciplinary team admission prevention meetings. Staff told us these meetings supported timely information sharing and joint decision making and enabled early action to improve people’s safety and wellbeing. There were arrangements for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

Feedback from people who used the service was positive regarding care provision and most feedback was positive about continuity of care. Staff told us they booked people in with the same clinician for follow up appointments for continuity. People could request to see a GP of their choice although there may be a longer wait.

Partner agencies gave positive feedback on collaborative working for the benefit of people who used the service, and others reported no concerns about how the service worked with them.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We did not receive any concerns from people about being able to access appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in a way that suited their needs. Care home representatives provided examples of how clinicians tailored the way they shared information to meet each person’s needs.

Accessible Information Standard information was provided on the service’s website, and the service met this standard. Staff recorded information on people’s clinical record, to support their communication or access needs. Staff gave examples of information they had provided to people to aid their understanding of care and treatment options, for example printing out test results for people who were not able to use the NHS app. Staff told us interpreter services were available which included British Sign Language. Information was available to advise people how to access their clinical record.

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. People who provided feedback told us staff made them feel listened to and supported. A representative from The Patients Association - Ixworth Surgery, told us a water fountain was available in the waiting room and handrails were being installed in the main corridor, following people’s feedback.

Information about how to make a complaint was available at the service and on its website, including details of the complaints process and how to escalate concerns. We reviewed a sample of complaints and found complaints were managed in line with their policy, although 1 complaint response letter did not include escalation information. The provider strengthened their complaint correspondence to ensure people who complained were always advised how to escalate their complaint if they remained dissatisfied, by including a copy of their complaint information leaflet with every response.

An annual review of complaints and compliments was completed to identify trends, share learning and implement improvements where necessary. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of people’s feedback. For example, correspondence received at reception was now date stamped and sent to the scanning team before being directed to the appropriate team or person. Leaders recorded, reviewed and shared positive feedback and compliments with staff.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Feedback we received from people was positive regarding access. People told us they liked having the option of requesting an appointment by telephone and appointments were generally available quickly. Care home representatives gave positive feedback about routine and urgent access. National GP Patient Survey data reflected people were satisfied with access by phone and with the overall experience of contacting their GP practice. The service percentages were above the England average for these indicators. Results from the NHS Friends and Family Test, from 12 January 2025 to 12 January 2026 showed 98% of people rated their overall experience of the service as good or very good.

A named GP visited each care home weekly. For urgent visits, the person’s named GP usually attended to maintain continuity, and GPs also visited housebound people. The service had a medicines delivery service which was highly valued by those who used it. A phlebotomist had been employed since November 2025, for the convenience of people who used the service and to increase blood taking capacity.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Prebooked appointments were available from 7am one weekday morning and to 8pm 2 weekday evenings. Staff told us people with the most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised. The service monitored and reviewed appointment data to ensure efficient use of appointment time.

The main entrance had automatic doors, and a ramp had been installed to improve access. All treatment rooms were on the ground floor, and a hearing loop was available.

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 who used the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Processes were in place to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people, including those who did not 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.

The service maintained a register of people with palliative care needs. Regular multidisciplinary team meetings were held to discuss and review the needs of people who were receiving palliative care. Minutes of meetings we reviewed confirmed this.

The service had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) policy. This included arrangements for example, for when these should be considered, information sharing, record keeping and audit, and reviewing decisions. People were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, which included cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Our review of people’s records showed decisions were appropriate and made in line with relevant legislation. The service shared this information with other services, when necessary.

Care home representatives provided positive feedback regarding how GPs involved individuals and their families in DNACPR and ReSPECT decision-making processes.