Dr H W Ng & Partner Also known as Scott Park 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.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers.

This service scored 71 (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.

Theservicedidnotalwaysmakesurepeoplecouldaccessthecare,supportandtreatmentthey neededwhentheyneededit.

The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This 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, 92% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 57%. In response to feedback from people who used the service, staff had made changes to improve access. All treatment rooms were available on the ground floor to enable access easily however there were no automatic doors available which meant people who required additional support would have to call on arrival to request for doors to be opened.

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. For example, processes were in place to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people, asylum seekers and refugees and Travellers.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and adjusted to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff we spoke with were clear about the arrangements in place. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was 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.