Cumberland House

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.

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.

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.

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

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. The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. For example, 72% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting their GP practice, in line with the national average of 70%. Since the inspection, GPPS have published new results in July 2026. The new data suggests an improvement with 82% of people responding positively. The survey also showed that 56% of respondents were positive about how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone. This was in line with the national average of 53%. Since the inspection, GPPS have published new results in July 2026. The new data suggests an improvement with 62% of people responding positively.

Feedback from people was positive. People reported being able to access appointments through telephone booking, call-back systems, face-to-face appointments and telephone consultations. Reception and care navigator staff were described as directing people to the most appropriate clinician or service. People also highlighted rapid responses when urgent health concerns were identified.

During the visit we observed staff offering a choice of date and time to suit people when they requested an appointment. The next routine appointment available to book was the same day for an advanced nurse practitioner (ANP), within 5 working days for a GP, 7 days for the health care assistant and 3 weeks for a practice nurse. Appointments were also available with the extended access service for evenings and weekends. Home visits were available for people who were housebound and the ANPs carried out weekly ward rounds for people living in 6 local care homes.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor. There was ramped access to the main door and a portable ramp available for the back door. None of the external or internal doors were automatic. There was a bell at the main door and staff told us they offered to open doors for people who required support. Designated parking for people with mobility problems was also available.

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, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. The service referred people to the social prescribers for support and guidance.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff told us reasonable adjustments for people were recorded in their records and taken into account when booking appointments, for example, longer appointments, interpreters or specific times of the day.

The service supported people with a learning disability and offered them an annual review. Staff told us how they had supported an individual and their family over a period of time to feel comfortable entering the building and seeing the practice nurse, so they were able to attend for their annual review. The provider told us only 2 people on the learning disability had declined their annual review last year. People with long term conditions who were house bound were offered an annual review with the urgent care practitioner, and people living in care homes were seen by the advanced nurse practitioners.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the service, such as the Friends and Family Test (FFT) and patient surveys. The practice carried out an annual patient survey looking at people’s experience of care and treatment and reported the results in October 2025. The survey had highlighted areas for improvement, which had been translated into an action plan and shared on the practice website. The practice was working alongside the patient participation group (PPG) to further develop the group and expand membership, to better represent the views of people using the service. To improve diversity and inclusion, the practice had created a virtual group (known as The Friends of Cumberland House) in addition to the physical group (known as ‘The Champions of Cumberland House’. The practice sought the views of both groups when considering implementing any changes.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The service was an Armed Forces veteran friendly accredited practice.

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.