Chagford Health 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 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 better than 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, 97% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of this service was being good, compared to a national average of 75% and, 97% responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone, compared to a national average of 53%.

The service offered on-the-day appointments with GPs, nurses and GP registrar. People could choose whether they had a face-to-face consultation or a telephone consultation. Reception staff were trained in care navigation, guided people on whether a telephone call was likely to not be clinically appropriate. For example, whether a physical examination may be required.

The appointment system consistently ensured both urgent and routine care was well managed and people, including those with barriers, could access the service equitably.

People told us they had a good experience accessing appointments. Feedback from people who used the service was overwhelmingly positive. They told us: “It has always been possible to get an appointment at short notice”, “What has truly set this practice apart, is the ability to secure appointments. Even routine check-ups are scheduled with surprising ease”, “Easy to get an appointment and the service provides excellent care”, “I have always been able to get an appointment when I need it” and “Excellent booking system for appointments”.

Home visits were arranged according to need and digital flags were added to people’s clinical records to highlight they could not attend the service in person.

The service’s friends and family survey results from 2025, showed that 97% of people felt it was easy to contact the service by telephone compared to the national average of 53% and 89% felt it was easy to contact the service using their website, compared to the national average of 51%.

The service was on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic doors had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are 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 service and to CQC, was overwhelmingly positive. Comments included: “Whenever I call reception, the staff go out of their way to help me”, “I had a home visit on the same day, even though I rang at 5.30pm”, “after a spell in hospital, my care on returning home has been exceptional” and “My GP has been kind, consistent, thorough and available. Continuity of care is an important factor in outcomes, and I deeply appreciate my GPs commitment to this”.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Leaders and staff proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations to address any local health inequalities. For example, recognition of rural farming community needs, based on environmental and social economic factors.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff assisted people in registering for digital access. People who wished to register that did not have online access, could contact the service to complete a paper registration form, which was the same as the information submitted via the online portal.

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.

The service considered and always tried to accommodate requests for preferred times of the day to assist those who preferred the quieter times.

We saw digital flags added to people’s records to ensure consistent and respectful care for people with specific needs, and who may need reasonable adjustments. For example, learning disabilities, autism, mental health conditions, deafness, and visual impairment.

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.