Fell Tower 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, 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.

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.
Leaders also told us that staff referred patients to social prescribers where appropriate, to support social, emotional, and practical needs. Staff offered patients a choice between telephone and face-to-face appointments, enabling them to access care in a way that suited their individual preferences. Patients with hearing impairments or communication barriers were flagged on the clinical system, and staff adapted their approach to ensure their needs were met. Leaders told us that patients with learning disabilities had flags recorded on the clinical system to alert staff and guide them in delivering personalised support such as offering longer appointments or a quieter waiting area.

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 practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.
Although the service was not aligned to any care homes, they had processes in place to ensure people that remained registered at the practice after moving into a care home could continue receiving appropriate support that met their needs.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The practice had processes in place to identify, record, and meet patients’ individual communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Relevant information was recorded and coded within the clinical system, with alerts used to ensure staff were aware of any specific requirements, enabling personalised care.

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 saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Patient feedback was utilised to identify and address additional training needs, improving service quality where appropriate.

According to the National GP Patient Survey data, 39% found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone. This was below the local average which was 57% and the national average which stood at 53%. The service, in response to patient feedback and input from the Patient Participation Group (PPG), upgraded their telephony system to a new cloud-based system. The updated telephony system had a call-back function, which decreased lengthy call waiting periods while preserving the caller's position in the queue. When we assessed, the system was still in its early stages, therefore comparative data was not yet available to quantitatively measure its full impact. We observed a decline in the number of complaints regarding telephone access since the implementation of the new system.

Available data also showed that digital access at the practice was significantly higher than both the local and national averages. The National GP Patient Survey indicated that 70% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App, compared to 54% locally and 49% nationally. In the same survey, 62% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using its website. This was also higher than both the local average of 53% and the national average of 51%. The service’s success in enhancing digital access was partially attributed to their involvement in a local initiative. The initiative's objectives were focused on improving patient’s digital access to services and alleviating pressure on alternative access channels such as telephone and in person.

The GP practice was purpose-built to be fully wheelchair accessible and included a car park. To assist those with hearing impairments, a hearing loop was also available at the reception.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are 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 service, was positive. In the National GP Patient Survey carried out between January and April 2025, 80% of respondents described their overall experience of this GP practice as good. This was above the national average of 75% and the local average which was 79%.
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 reasonable adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Some of the adjustments made included offering longer consultations or scheduling appointments at the end of the day to better suit individual needs.
The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people. Homeless people could register using the practice address as their registered address which could also be used for any correspondence. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

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, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.