King Edward Road Surgery

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 fairly and without discrimination. The practice complied with equality and human rights legislation. People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and were supported to make informed choices. Feedback from people was actively sought and used, alongside other sources of information, to improve services. The practice monitored access to care and took action to reduce barriers and address potential inequalities. Most people reported they could access care in ways that met their individual needs and protected their equality characteristics. People understood their options, including the choice to decline or withdraw from treatment. The practice worked to reduce health inequalities through staff training, patient engagement and service improvement initiatives. People, carers and staff could access information and advice when needed. This key question has been rated as good.

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 practice 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.

The practice used patient feedback to identify areas for improvement and made necessary adjustments to ensure patient care was optimum. The patient participation group (PPG) were positive about their involvement with the practice and assured us any suggestions were taken seriously to improve patient care. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. People with caring responsibilities were identified and supported.

The practice held carers events, inviting carers to attend, meet other carers and access local support services. Representatives from local organisations such as Age UK and the local Age Well services attended these events to promote their services. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals so they could access the most appropriate care. There was an appointed carer’s champion. The practice had attained the local Northamptonshire Carers Silver and Gold Award for services to carers.

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 supported residents at 5 local residential care homes and 2 neurological rehabilitation centres. These services all received tailored support, including if necessary weekly ward rounds with a dedicated GP. Leaders advised patient choice was prioritised, and they worked in partnership with these local services to support the best possible health care and outcomes for residents, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The practice had tailored its services to meet the varied needs of its community. For example, the practice was actively involved in their local Primary Care Network (PCN), where they worked with other practices to improve the local health delivery. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare providers. Information was available on a range of services people could access or self-refer to, which included carer support, drug and alcohol, and mental health services.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff told us information was available to patients in their reception area and on the practice's website. The practice website contained details on how to make an appointment, the services available, and resources.

The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. They would highlight in patients' records if they had any communication or accessibility needs; information which staff gathered when a patient registered and opportunistically. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. A hearing loop was available. Longer appointments were available to be booked if staff needed to use a translator, for neurodiverse people or people with a learning disability.

The practice was good at enabling people to share feedback, 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. The practice actively gathered patient feedback utilising the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT). We reviewed results between April 2026 and August 2026 and saw 86.5% of respondents described their experience as good or very good (total of 525 responses received). A representative from the patient participation group (PPG) advised the practice engaged well with the PPG and they felt listened to and involved in decision making.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. We reviewed 2 complaints records and found no concerns with how the practice had managed them. An analysis of complaints was undertaken annually, identifying themes and trends and supporting improvement. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of people’s feedback, including complaints.

Data from the National GP Patient Survey 2026 highlighted that the practice scored below local and national averages for some questions related to access. 43% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone, in comparison to the local average of 51%. 58% responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice compared to the local average of 70%. 66% felt they waited the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, compared to the local average of 71%. However, 58% responded positively to the ease of contacting the practice using their website compared to the local average of 56%.

Staff advised the introduction of the total triage system in January 2025 and investments in an improved telephone system had improved patient experience. The triage system was led by at least 1 clinician all day. By submitting queries online, phone call waiting times had reduced, urgent cases received faster responses and patients were booked with the appropriate professional, improving overall patient experience. For patients who did not have digital access or for those who preferred to book via telephone or in person, staff supported requests for care and completed triage forms on the patient’s behalf. Various appointment types were available such as in person, online and telephone consultations.

The provider had invested significantly in expansion of the premises to facilitate more clinicians which in turn supported improved access. In the 5 years preceding our assessment, the provider had expanded to add an additional 6 clinical rooms. At the time of our assessment there were 20 clinical rooms available. All qualified GPs were GP trainers which enabled the practice to support increasing numbers of trainee GP registrars, again improving clinical access. (GP registrars are qualified doctors training to be GPs). The practice continued to provide patients with in-house phlebotomy services to support timely care and reduce pressures on the secondary care service. In addition, there was evidence of upskilling of staff to support better access. For example, a health care assistant who had trained as a nurse and was being further supported to train as an independent prescriber.

There was a priority bypass number made available to vulnerable patients, including those residing in care homes. The practice was open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday and digital triage was available from 8am until capacity was reached. Administrative requests could also be made online throughout the day. Extended access appointments were available weekday evenings and at weekends via the local GP Federation arrangements. The location was accessible for wheelchair users with nurse rooms on the ground floor and doctors’ rooms on the first floor accessible via a lift. At the time of our assessment the lift was out of service, however arrangements were in place for clinicians to see patients as necessary on the ground floor instead.

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.

Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was largely positive. Results of the national GP patient survey 2026, found 74% of patients surveyed responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice which was the same as the local average. 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 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. Records reviewed, showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care. Staff spoke with kindness and compassion about how the information for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms was gathered. They documented decisions made by patients about cardiopulmonary resuscitation on these ReSPECT forms and patient records and ensured these were reviewed and updated at least annually. This information was shared with other services when necessary. Patients and their relatives were also sent a digital link prior to the appointment to discuss ReSPECT forms, which provided information on the process, guidance, a leaflet and a video guide. There was also a template form that provided an explanation of what each section of the ReSPECT form meant, guiding them on what they may want to consider when completing it. The link was also shared with care homes to distribute to families as needed.