Queensview 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. 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 improvements to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. The introduction of a triage system had enhanced access. 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 71 (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. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals so they could access the most appropriate care.

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 had tailored its services to meet the varied needs of its community. For example, the practice was actively involved in their local Primary Care Network (PCN), where they worked with other practices to improve the local health delivery. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers, information was available on a range of services people could access or self-refer to, which included carer support, drug and alcohol, and mental health services.

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.

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 from January to March 2026 and found that of 149 responses received, 129 responses (87%) rated 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 4 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.

Data from the National GP Patient Survey highlighted that the practice scored lower than the local and national average for all questions related to access. 33% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, in comparison to the local average of 44% and national average of 53%. 59% responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice compared to the national average of 70%. 73% felt they waited the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, which was slightly below the national average of 74%. Staff advised the introduction of the total triage system had improved patient experience. The triage system provided data dashboards to enable better workforce planning and understanding of patient needs. By submitting queries online, phone call waiting times had reduced, urgent cases received faster responses and patients were booked with the appropriate professional, improving overall patient experience. Various appointment types were available such as in person, online and telephone consultations. 

Patients reported there were still some difficulties with telephone wait times. We reviewed the practice’s telephone data and saw in the months preceding our assessment, telephone wait times had increased, as had the number of abandoned calls. Leaders advised they were aware of this and aligned it to staffing pressures, due to maternity leave and recruitment gaps. They advised they had created additional roles which were almost fully recruited to and that management had been working to support front line staff with the telephones. They anticipated that once newly recruited staff were fully trained, telephone access would improve again.

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. Extended access appointments were available weekday evenings and at weekends via the local GP Alliance extended access arrangements. The practice 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 63% of patients surveyed responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice, compared to the national average of 69%. 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. Our records review 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. Palliative patients were discussed during monthly multi-disciplinary meetings.