Rustlings Road 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 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 2026 National GP Patient Survey. The results 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, 87% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 73% and 87% of respondents reported it was easy to access the practice by telephone (national average 57%). The majority of feedback received into CQC as part of this assessment was positive about access, though there were some comments relating to the length of wait for a routine appointment. This was discussed with the provider, and we were told if a patient deemed their condition to be urgent, the care navigators would put it on the triage list for a GP to review.

The service offered pre-bookable appointments Monday to Friday 8.30am to 6pm with extended access clinics available on evenings and weekends at 3 local GP practices which staff could book patients directly into. The service operated a GP triage system for urgent appointments. Staff trained in care navigation signposted patients to the most appropriate service or to the on-call GP to triage. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of care navigation, supported by flowcharts and guidance documents. During the assessment, we reviewed a patient journey through triage and observed that, although a GP had made an appropriate clinical decision regarding the service required, the rationale had not been recorded in the patient record. We discussed this with the provider who confirmed the procedure in place, and we saw evidence after the assessment that this had been discussed and re-iterated with staff at a clinical meeting. On the day of the assessment, we observed the next routine appointment to be in 18 working days’ time. The service offered home visits when appropriate.

The service operated from a converted Victorian building. Outside access to the premises was supported by a ramp with a handrail. While there was no automatic entrance door, this had been identified within a recent disability risk assessment, and staff told us they provided support to patients when accessing the building if required. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. Although there was no designated disabled parking due to the constraints of the premises, there was parking available on surrounding streets. The service had not received any feedback or complaints from patients regarding access arrangements. The provider demonstrated an understanding of the limitations of the premises and took reasonable steps to support patients and meet their individual needs within the constraints of the building layout.

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

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services to address any local health inequalities. The service was registered as a “Safe Surgery” (a practice that has pledged to provide equitable access to healthcare for everyone in their community, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, such as migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and people experiencing homelessness). The provider had completed a reasonable adjustment audit and engaged with patients whose circumstances may make accessing services more difficult. For example, questionnaires had been sent to patients with a diagnosis of autism to understand their preferred communication methods. The provider was also using annual health checks to gather this information from patients with a learning disability to support their individual needs. The practice was an Armed Forces Veteran Friendly Accredited Practice, with trained staff able to support veterans and their families and signpost them to specialist services where appropriate. The practice was in the process of identifying patients and collating a register.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was mostly positive.

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.