King Edwards 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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment on November 2022, we rated this key question as Requires Improvement because National GP Patient Survey scores were low. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good because the practice had implemented a range of measures to improve access and patient experience, including an established call centre, the recruitment of further receptionists and call handlers and the recruitment of further clinical staff. Internal patient survey results and feedback from patients indicated improvements in ease of making appointments.

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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment decisions, working in partnership with them to respond appropriately to changes in their needs.

The service received 99 responses to the 2025 National GP Patient Survey, a completion rate of 16%. Results from the survey showed that 76% of patients felt that the health professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last GP appointment. However, this was lower than the local average GP score of 81% and the national average score of 86%. Seventy percent of patients who responded found the reception and administrative team at the service helpful. This was lower than the local average GP score of 77% and the national average score of 83%. An internal survey carried out by the practice in May 2026 showed 84% of patients found the reception and administrative team helpful.

We saw evidence of the Friends and Family (FFT) data. Feedback received was predominantly positive. The service analysed the feedback monthly and actioned any negative comments.

The service told us that it considered the demographics of the practice population, offered reasonable adjustments where required and took people’s preferences into consideration during appointments and when providing information. They understood the needs of its population and carried out initiatives for their care and wellbeing. For example, the service focused on diabetic patients during Ramadan, took part in lectures regarding ADHD and were a veteran accredited practice. The service provided information to patients in formats to help patients understand their care, treatment and conditions as well as having access to interpreters, the provision of longer appointments where required and conducting home visits where needed.

The service 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 service working in partnership with other services, including other practices within their Primary Care Network, to meet the needs of its patient population. The service ran several pop-up clinics in collaboration with other healthcare providers to provide support and educate patients. This included a pop-up clinic dedicated to refugees and asylum seekers and a pop-up clinic dedicated to members of the African and Caribbean community. The service was recognised for their work in the community by the Health Service Journal Partnership awards.

The service signposted patients to community services where required. There were established mechanisms for engaging with community healthcare providers and, for example, a social prescriber.

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

The service ensured the patient population had access to information that was beneficial to their health. They provided access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The service had staff who spoke different languages who were able to assist patients and had a hearing loop system. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Support was provided to patients in using online services and where patients were unable to use online services, they helped over the telephone or in person at the practice.

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.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed 84% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in discussions about their care and treatment during their last appointment. This was above the local average GP score of 88% and the national average score of 91%.

The service reviewed data from Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback, which was predominantly positive. They analysed feedback provided and had put in place actions to address any negative feedback received.

The service had a Patient Participation Group (PPG) which engaged with the practice on a regular basis. We spoke with a member of the PPG who told us that the practice interacted positively with the group. They told us any feedback provided was taken on board by the management team and the PPG were consulted when changes were made in the practice. For example, improved accessibility from use of the car park and the addition of further clinical rooms.

The service had identified ways for people to share feedback and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Information was available for patients about how to make a complaint on the service website. The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. We saw evidence they had analysed significant events and complaints received over the previous 12 months and had identified themes of complaints and where actions needed to be taken and improvements. The service shared its analysis of significant events and complaints with staff members to ensure that learning was embedded.

The service aimed to ensure that people could access the care, support and treatment they required, when they required it. However, results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed patient satisfaction in relation to telephone access was lower than local and national averages. Of the 99 respondents, 30% reported that it was very or fairly easy to get through to the practice by phone, an increase on the 27.4% score we found during our last inspection in November 2022, but below the local average of 53% and national average of 51%.

In response to the low survey results, the service implemented a range of measures to improve access and patient satisfaction. This included an established call centre, the recruitment of further receptionists and call handlers, the recruitment of further clinical staff and triaged clinics commenced by nurses for patients presenting with minor alignments.

The practice undertook an internal patient survey, which aimed to mirror questions asked on the GP Patient Survey with a larger proportion of respondents. The survey showed that 50% of patients found the practice easy or very easy to access via telephone. The practice aimed to conduct another internal survey in November 2026 to reflect on if changes resulted in better patient satisfaction.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experiences or outcomes, and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback provided by people using the service through the Friends and Family Test and through the Patient Participation Group was predominantly positive. 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 inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. Patients in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the surgery, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and travellers. People that required annual checks were monitored and contacted by the service team to ensure they attended for the required appointments.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including end of life care.

The service worked collaboratively with other healthcare providers to support patients with end-of-life care. They discussed patients receiving end-of-life care at clinical meetings and liaised with the relevant teams to ensure a comprehensive management plan was in place. Advanced care planning discussions were held about long term care with patients and their relatives where appropriate. This information was shared with other services when necessary.