Woodlands Health 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 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 Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

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. Most staff identified that the care provided to people was one of the service’s key strengths.

The service promoted person-centred care through individual patient lists for GP’s. The GP Patient Survey (2025) identified that 93% of respondents said they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment, this is above the national average of 91%.

However, the service had identified a low number of carers considering their population size. The service did not offer additional services for recognised carers such as flu vaccines or annual health checks.

People received care and treatment from the service that demonstrated an understanding of the diverse health and care needs of their local communities. There was continuity in people’s care and treatment, care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice.

Respondents to the National GP Patient Survey 2025 reported positively on the service they received with 92% stating they knew what the next steps would be after contacting the service.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The use of a messaging system allowed leaflets to be sent directly to people.

We noted that CQC’s previous rating and report was available on the website however, we did not see this on display in the service.

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.

We reviewed complaint records and the service had a system in place which enabled people to receive a timely response. Complaints were managed in line with their policy. Learning from complaints was shared in staff meetings. For example, a complaint was raised regarding lack of compassion from reception staff. The service used duty of candour, apologised to the patient and a meeting took place to discuss this. Minutes of the meeting were reviewed, and staff were reminded to treat all patients with compassion and dignity.

There were established and effective processes for people to feedback on the service and care they received independently of the national GP patient survey or Friends and Family test. The service had an active PPG as an established means of communicating with people and the members met in person 3 times a year. The PPG reported that if they provided feedback, they were informed of any changes at the following meeting.

People reported high levels of satisfaction with their care in the national GP patient survey (2025). For example, 90% of people who responded to the survey said the healthcare professional was good at listening to them. This response was above the local and national average for patient satisfaction.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service offered a range of appointments including enhanced access at evenings and weekends. They had also introduced a new online triage system in November 2025. However, some feedback from people who use the service continued to raise concerns regarding access to appointments. We received 20 responses via our Give Feedback on Care form, 7 of these commented negatively on the ability to access the service.

National GP Patient Survey data (2025) identified 45% of respondents stated it was easy to contact the service on the phone; this is below the national average of 53%. In addition, 48% of respondents stated it was easy to contact the service on their website which was comparable to the national average of 51%. Feedback from a 3rd party organisation who we contacted as part of this assessment also identified concerns with access to appointments.

Staff were unable to confirm whether a hearing loop was available within the service.

However, there were access facilities for individuals with limited mobility including a lift, a ramp, automatic doors and most of the consulting rooms were downstairs to improve access.

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. Staff have undertaken learning disability and autism training. For those who do not have access to the internet, the service had a system in place whereby people could contact the service by phone, or they could attend the service in person. Survey results from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) showed that 80% of respondents described their overall experience of the service as good. This was above the national average of 75%.

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 kept records of people who may be approaching the end of their life. This allowed discussions between the service and the local hospice to take place. The service told us personalised care plans were completed, and this information was shared between services. We saw documentation which supported this.