Hampton 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

RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The practice provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the practice took it seriously and acted on it. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

The practice 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.

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. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The practice organised and participated in monthly community walk and talk events. This encouraged simple physical activity and making social connections within the community.

Results from the national GP survey 2026 showed 99% 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. This was above the local and national averages of, 93% and 92% respectively.

The practice had access to translation services, including British Sign Language and online translation services.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services in the local area including those within the voluntary sector to meet the needs of its patient population.

The practice had acted to tailor its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. It used population health data, Ardens searches, QOF registers, patient feedback, and local health priorities to understand the needs of its community and model the services provided. The practice also regularly reviewed demand, appointment capacity, patient demographics, and health inequalities to ensure its resources were directed to those who needed them most.

Ardens Searches are pre-built clinical and administrative search tools used by UK general practices within their clinical systems. The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) tracks registered patients diagnosed with specific long-term conditions or public health criteria to monitor care quality, plan local health services, and calculate practice funding.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The practice had access to translation services, including British Sign Language. Patients were informed of how to access their care records.

Data from the GP Patient survey 2026 showed that 76% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using their website. This was above the local average of 68% and national average of 58%.

The practice placed alerts on patients’ records to ensure that they were given appropriate appointments.

The practice 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.

There was a complaints procedure and form available on the practice website. The form encouraged patients to submit complaints in writing, either by email or by using the complaints form attached to the complaint’s procedure. The procedure also signposted patients to external stakeholders, should they remain dissatisfied following a response from the practice.

The practice made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

At our last inspection in September 2017, we found that there was some patient dissatisfaction with access to the practice. Patient responses to the 2016 GP Patient Survey showed that 55% of patients were easily able to contact the practice by phone compared to a national average satisfaction of 73% of patients.

In the most recent, 2026, survey, 51% of patients responding found it easy to contact the practice by phone. This represented a decline since the 2025 GP Patient Survey when 62.7% were positive about the ease of contacting the practice by phone, which was above the national average of 52.9%.

The practice told us that the 2026 survey period, January to March 2026, had coincided with changes to its online triage service. The changes had had the impact of placing greater burden on phone access. The practice had taken action to improve patient access, including, for patients who were unable to use online access, reception staff helped them to complete the online triage forms. Despite those difficulties, 89% of patients were positive about the overall experience of contacting the practice. This was above the local average of 77% and the national average of 73%.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were 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 practice, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. 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.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the practice, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

We reviewed patient feedback via the NHS Friends and Family Test. The most recent test found that 98% (122 out of 124) of respondents would be likely or very likely to recommend the practice to a family member or friend.

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. This information was shared with other services when necessary.

However, when we reviewed 3 Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) records where patients were recorded as lacking capacity, the first record lacked evidence that there had been a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessment. The other 2 records were appropriately recorded.

Following our inspection the practice reviewed and improved its policy and added an appendix for relevant parts of the MCA to which clinicians could refer when recording patients DNACPR decisions.

The practice held multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings every 10 days. These enabled sharing of information with relevant stakeholder organisations. A member of the team was due to attend an MDT meeting to share information.