Aire Valley Surgery

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.

Both urgent (same day) and pre-bookable appointments were available. The service offered extended access appointments which included evening and weekend appointments. Home visits were also offered to patients where appropriate.

Patients could book appointments online, however non-digital access routes remained available for patients who could not or did not wish to use online services.

The service regularly reviewed data on access and waiting times. This information was used to assess appointment demand and capacity, helping to inform ongoing discussions and planning around patient access and service delivery.

All clinical rooms were located on ground level, and the service was accessible to patients with disabilities. Dedicated parking for people with disabilities was available at both sites. Accessible toilet facilities were also available at both sites, however an emergency pull-cord had not been fitted at the main site. The service had arranged for this to be installed in August 2026. Furthermore, the service had worked with its patient participation group to complete a disability access audit across both sites, reviewing the patient journey from the perspective of people with a range of mobility needs. As a result, the service had made practical improvements including reconfiguring furniture and room layouts to improve wheelchair access, and removing potential obstructions within reception and waiting areas.

As part of the assessment process, we asked the service to encourage patients to share feedback about their experience of care through the CQC website. Most of the feedback received was positive. Many patients commented positively about being able to access appointments and services when needed. A small number of patients shared concerns about access, including difficulties obtaining appointments.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. They understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made reasonable adjustments where possible.

The service took steps to promote equity by identifying and supporting patients who may be at increased risk of poorer experience, for example those with a learning disability or severe mental illness. The service held registers of these patient groups, and patient records were also flagged to easily highlight any additional needs.

Staff had not completed relevant training in learning disability and autism. After the assessment the service had put plans in place for all staff to complete this training.

The service offered 15-minute appointments to allow sufficient time to discuss specific care needs, with the option to extend this where appropriate.

The service told us they worked to remove barriers to healthcare access and that a lack of identification, proof of address, or immigration status, would not prevent patients from registering there.

The service had also achieved Veteran Friendly accreditation, recognising its commitment to supporting the needs of military veterans. This ensured veterans were appropriately identified and able to access tailored support and services.

The service had systems in place to capture and review feedback from people who used the service. For example, the service had a patient participation group (PPG). PPG meetings were attended by the practice manager, with participation also from different clinical staff groups as appropriate to the topics under discussion.

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.