Cheriton Bishop & Teign Valley 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 outstanding. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 82 (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.

Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Staff got to know people during regular appointments and offered care and treatment with a person-centred approach. Staff described how they explored people’s understanding, ideas, and available family support. They then adjusted the medicine labels to make the timing of doses easier to understand, helping to improve compliance.

The service worked closely with social workers to discuss the needs of people with complex care during monthly meetings.

Staff provided examples of tailoring the care and treatment for people with a learning disability by keeping a record of how to approach them individually. Parents and carers were involved during care planning, and leaflets were given to the families before their scheduled appointment to identify care needs. They also provided longer appointments for people who needed them.

People who provided us with feedback consistently said the service was excellent, exceptional and the staff were attentive, friendly and professional. Several of them shared examples of how the staff provided thorough care and support to the patient who was seriously ill and also looked after the wellbeing of the carers during the difficult time, which made their lives easier.

A person commented, “The patients are at the centre of the services they provide and ensure each patient has the best experience navigating the surgery, often going above and beyond to offer the best care.” Another person highlighted, “They remind me of medical reviews and allow me to have my say on my care but give me all the information needed to make an informed choice.”

We reviewed the NHS Friends and Family test results from April 2025 to February 2026 and the vast majority of feedback was rated as either "good" or "very good”.

The service had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. Our review of the clinical system demonstrated that referrals to other services were made promptly, and information shared by other services was managed effectively and timely to support good outcomes for people.

People’s feedback to CQC provided examples of how their medical conditions were managed jointly and efficiently by the service and the hospitals.

The long-standing clinical staff team provided continuity and stability with minimal requirements for locum staff. When locum staff had been needed, the same pool of staff were used to ensure consistency.

The service was aware that their rural location posed challenges for their population to access certain services. Therefore, they continued to provide services which were no longer funded under the NHS to their patient population, such as ear syringing.

The service understood the diverse needs of people and provided various options for prescription collection including at the onsite dispensary, the branch site, the local post office or arrangements for prescription home delivery when needed.

The service worked closely with a local charity to give people social and practical support. The service was also flexible with adjusting appointment times so that charity volunteers could transport people to their medical appointments.

The service maintained a register of complex and vulnerable people who were flagged on their clinical records. Clinicians met regularly to review any changes in these individuals’ conditions, ensuring everyone had up‑to‑date, shared information about their care and treatment.

The service actively promoted continuity of care by booking people to the same GP, when possible. This approach particularly supported people who needed to attend multiple appointments as they had built a relationship with their GP and were supported along their care journey. We received feedback from some people who had been with the service for decades and were satisfied with the level of care over the years. The 2025 National GP Patient Survey data showed 75% of respondents usually got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, which was higher than the national average of 40%.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, the service posted health and surgery information in their local parish magazines to avoid digital exclusion for people who did not use social media or have internet access.

The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records.

The notice board in the waiting area provided various health information. The service’s website contained a variety of information to support and educate people, including self-help advice on healthy lifestyles and mental wellbeing. The service actively engaged with PPG members for their advice on the layout and style of the service’s website and the suggestions were implemented to improve people’s experience on using their website.

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.

Information on how to complain was available via the service’s website and complaint leaflets were available at the waiting area. There was a clear system to record and investigate complaints. We saw complaints, whilst infrequent, were managed in line with the service’s policy. The service listened to people’s concerns and responded to their complaints. The service held regular meetings with staff to review complaints and share the lessons learned and actions taken.

The service made changes to processes following people’s complaints and communicated the improvement with people by publishing the improvement made on the notice board in the waiting room. For example, the service introduced urgent appointment time slots for wound dressing every day to improve access.

The service regularly collected people’s feedback through the NHS Friends and Family Test.

Members of the patient participation group (PPG) felt valued by the service and they had two-way communication with the service. (PPG is a group of people who represented the views of people using the service.) The PPG helped the service to collect people’s feedback in October 2025 at a vaccination clinic. The service reviewed the feedback and provided a summary response on common themes to address the feedback on their website and social media. The response covered clarifying the current processes and explaining the limitations of implementing some suggestions. For example, some people would like to reinstate walk-in GP clinics. The service explained the rationale that the current triage system was more efficient in directing people to the most appropriate clinician and could avoid unwell people sitting in crowded waiting areas. The service provided relevant appointment request data to demonstrate a walk-in system would be unsustainable and potentially unsafe for such demand.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey data reflected that during their last appointment, 98% of respondents said the healthcare professional (HCP) was good at listening to them (national average of 87%).

People’s feedback collected by CQC for this assessment showed they felt listened to and supported by the service. One of them commented, “They just seem to have a ‘can do’ attitude which is most welcomed as a patient, most importantly- they listen to your questions and problems.”

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access appointments online, over the telephone and in person. All clinical requests were reviewed and triaged on the same day by the duty team consisted of GP and advanced nurse practitioner. Appointments were offered based on urgency and clinical needs. The service provided uncapped access to same-day appointments so that people would be seen on the same day if clinically indicated.

We reviewed the appointment diary during the site visit. Multiple face-to-face appointments were available on the same day with the capacity to further expand by converting from the other types of appointments if necessary. There was a high capacity for same-day telephone appointments, and some requests could be managed by text communication.

The wait for routine, pre-booked appointments with a specific GP was within a week. People were encouraged to book with named GPs to promote continuity of care but people had the option to choose another GP if they wished to.

Pre-booked appointments were available every Tuesday evening to enhance access for working people and others who were unable to attend during normal opening hours.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed people were highly satisfied with accessing the service.

The survey showed:

98% of respondents were positive to the overall experience of contacting the service (national average of 70%).

91% of respondents found it easy to contact the service on the phone (national average of 53%).

People’s feedback to CQC and through the NHS Friends and Family Test showed they were satisfied with access to the service, describing quick and appropriate appointments. All members of the PPG who provided feedback to CQC commented the access was very good and easy. Phone calls were answered quickly and they were being seen on the same day. Phrases used by them to describe access included “second to none”, “one of the best in Devon / UK”.

The service reviewed the telephone call reports and adjusted the front desk workforce in answering phone calls accordingly. The call data between March 2025 and March 2026 showed the average time for incoming calls to be answered was consistently within 30 seconds and over 98% of the calls were answered from the queue.

The service analysed their appointment data which showed their mean number of appointments per 1,000 patients in September 2025 and January 2026 were both 16% higher than the national averages.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the additional support some people may need when attending their appointment such as requiring a translator or a longer appointment.

There was level access to the premises and all the clinical rooms were on the ground floor at both sites. The service was equipped with hearing loop system for people with hearing impairment.

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 provider as well as to CQC, was positive about being supported to access care and treatment.

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.For example, the service maintained a vulnerable people register which was regularly reviewed during multi-disciplinary meetings to tailor their care based on individual needs and linking with appropriate support.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, people with a learning disability or mental health needs could have longer appointments at a time of day which suited them and when the service was quieter.

The service was flexible in its approach to supporting people. For example, home visits could be arranged if required.

The service was an accredited veteran-friendly practice. The service supported veteran’s physical and mental health, and they could be referred to dedicated specialist healthcare services when required.

The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances, such as homeless people.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture feedback from people using the service, 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 on palliative care, which was colour coded as red, amber and green representing different stages of care needs. The service discussed with district nurses about people on palliative care in weekly meetings. We received positive feedback from people using the service on palliative care, describing all the staff as “empathetic”, “helpful” and “wonderful”. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was coded and shared with other services when necessary. However, we reviewed the clinical records of 5 people coded as having a DNACPR decision and 2 of them did not have a Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP) forms (a document used to record people’s wishes for medical treatment including resuscitation) in their records. The service acted immediately to follow up with the affected people and obtain the relevant records. The service also updated their relevant policy to ensure regular review of the DNACPR decision.