Tredegar Practice

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.

Staff placed people 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 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. Results from the national GP survey 2025 showed 89% of participants felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. The local average was 88% and 91% national average.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. The service had a highly transient patient population and understood the challenges of providing care that was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Leaders shared data produced by the Public Health Intelligence team for Tower Hamlets which showed that in 2023, the proportion of households in Bow West, with population churn in the last 5 years, was 49.3%.

The service had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. The service was actively involved in their local primary care network, where they worked with other services to improve local health inequalities. For example, the service had responded to local data which showed a high proportion of older people living alone and linked up with the local authority’s loneliness project, the Connection Coalition. Staff told us about examples of improvements made following the loneliness project, such as adding a prompt to a health review template to ask people about social isolation to improve intervention such as referrals to the social prescribers.

The service attended both anticipatory and current multidisciplinary meetings regularly to review and improve patient care. People in vulnerable circumstances were easily able to register with the service, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers. Patients could be referred to the community mental health nurse, who worked one day a week at the service.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, interpreting and translation for people who don’t speak English as a first language and for deaf people who use British Sign Language. We saw information about interpreter services was visible in the reception area.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard and staff had completed training. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Staff had access to the data protection and accessible information policies online. Data from the GP Patient survey 2025 showed that 70% of patients found it easy to contact the service using their website. This was higher than the local47% national averages of 51%.

Staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

We found people had multiple ways to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the national patient survey. When a patient submitted an online consultation, they could opt in to taking a short survey.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. The complaints policy was available on the practice website and included information for patients about how to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. The full team were involved in reviewing outcomes to maximise learning and support change. At the time of our assessment, leaders told us there was no active Patient Participation Group (PPG).

The service made sure that people could access care and support. The service was proactive in ensuring patients had access to appointments. They recognised some patients experienced delays in getting through to the service to access appointments. Staff had access to telephone call data which they reviewed weekly. This meant they could review capacity and demand more effectively and they could adjust capacity over the week, to deal with busier periods.

People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and there was a ramp and automatic door at the entrance to the practice.

The most recent GP Patient Survey data, from 2025, showed 62% of patients found it easy to get through to the GP practice by phone, which was higher than the local average 51% and national average of 53%. In response to the National GP Patient Survey and feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. Patients were able to book appointments in advance, and the service actively promoted the use of the NHS app. The service had implemented an on-call duty GP list to enable the prioritisation of patients with urgent needs. In January 2025, the service had engaged with the community to promote digital access to GP practices in the primary care network. The service took part in a digital access event held locally to support people who may be digitally excluded or experience communication barriers. The team demonstrated the NHS App features and offered setup assistance, and people were offered information leaflets. The team were able to speak in Bengali with some people. Around 30 people were engaged with during the event.

Staff and leaders considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

Leaders 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. For example, the service took part in the Tower Hamlets disabilities competency programme which was co-produced with people who are disabled to bring more awareness of disability and how best to support them in accessing care. Staff used reasonable adjustment alerts in patient records to support people’s access to healthcare. 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, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Staff kept a palliative care register and told us patients were reviewed according to their needs and discussed during practice staff meetings. The service had processes in place to review if care and preferences had been met in line with patients wishes.