Leatside 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 the same.
 

This service scored 79 (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 was exceptional at making 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.
The service delivered person centred care that included understanding people’s individualised goals and providing a multidisciplinary approach in supporting people to meet their goals. We saw how the service had used its various teams and services to support people in meeting their goals such as increasing their mobility or improving social isolation
We found that people’s care plans reflected their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Care plans also clearly stated people’s goals
The service was able to share case studies that demonstrated people had positive outcomes from a person centred multidisciplinary approach. For example, a person had been identified by the physiotherapist as requiring support for mobility and social isolation. The person received a holistic assessment and a proactive plan of care that included mobility equipment and signposting to community groups.Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Staff told us that some people received individualised plans that included regular follow‑up appointments, which helped to minimise the risk of hospital admission and reduce the need for frequent contact with the service.
 

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 worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.
The service shared information to improve outcomes for patients. This included the community cardiac team access to patient records where the team can view appointment information to avoid duplication.
The service worked as part of a PCN meaning people could access to additional teams such as the health and wellbeing team. Within this team, there were staff with specialisms such as adult mental health, ADHD, and people under the age of 16. This meant people had access to a diverse range of services, appropriate to their needs.
 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard and people were informed as to how to access their care records.
Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. Staff had access to interpreter services and could provide printed information or pictorial materials for people.
Staff recognised they were the first point of call for people and told us how they provide information around signposting, guiding people to the appropriate service such as Pharmacy First, adult social care and the PCN’s health and wellbeing team.
The services’ website contained health promotion information, including details on NHS health checks, screening programmes, maternity care, and contraception.
 

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. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback.
Staff told us they felt able to raise feedback and suggestions and when they did so, leaders of the service listened.
 

The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. Data from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey demonstrated that people responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone.
People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Staff were aware of the needs of their community and provided the support they required to access services such as help with filling in registration forms. Staff were aware of inequalities and barriers in accessing the service and explained ‘’people… do not have internet access and sometimes do not actually have telephones.”
The service reported a number of people who did not attend their appointments. They were actively monitoring this and had systems in place to try and reduce this. The PPG had also supported addressing this through educating people on how it impacts the service.
 

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. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience. They worked with local organisations, including within their PCN and voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. 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 advanced care planning and cardiopulmonary resuscitation and treatment escalation plans. Appropriate people had been involved in these decisions when the person lacked the capacity to make them independently. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Multidisciplinary meetings were held for people living with cancer and for those approaching the end of life, supporting continuity in care and treatment.
Clinicians working at the service took an opportunistic approach in identifying where advance care plans may be appropriate and used a care coordinator to work with the person to develop their plan.