East Park Medical Practice

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 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 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.

Feedback from people using the service showed that they felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment and were supported to make informed choices. Records demonstrated that people's preferences, communication needs, and reasonable adjustments were considered and clearly documented, reducing the need for individuals to repeatedly explain their requirements. A review of patient records, including medicine reviews and palliative care documentation, showed that people were given sufficient time, information, and support to discuss their options and make decisions that reflected their wishes and preferences.

National GP Patient Survey results (2026) showed that the practice was underperforming compared to both local and national averages for overall patient experience. The survey found that 72% of respondents described their overall experience of the practice as positive, compared with 74% locally and 77% nationally.

There were some shortfalls in how the service met the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community, which meant care was not always flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The service promoted health initiatives, including wellness activities and cervical cancer awareness campaigns, although this was limited by ongoing building works and not available in alternative languages.

Staff could refer people to a social prescriber through the Primary Care Network (PCN); however, there was limited evidence that social prescribing and other additional PCN roles were being fully utilised to support people's wider health, wellbeing and social needs. Due to the limitations of the current premises and ongoing building work, these roles were unable to deliver clinics from the practice at the time of the assessment. The practice had plans to include space within the extended premises to enable onsite clinics and improve access to these services.

Building works and limitations within the current premises had also resulted in the temporary suspension of some services, including minor surgery procedures, and reduced opportunities for external healthcare providers to deliver services from the practice. This limited access to additional services for the local community.

The service generally provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information and adapted communication to meet individual needs.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to adapt information to meet people's communication preferences, including the use of interpreter services where required. They gave examples of supporting people to access information in ways that promoted understanding and informed decision-making.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements and could describe learning and improvements made following information governance incidents. We also observed appropriate measures to protect people's personal and confidential information.

The 2026 National GP Patient Survey showed 89% of respondents said they knew what the next steps would be following their last appointment, slightly lower when compared with 93% locally and 93% nationally.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns and be involved in decisions about their care. Leaders were visible and approachable and took time to speak with people directly when concerns were raised, helping to ensure issues were addressed promptly.

The Patient Participation Group (PPG) was not active. The service had made attempts to re-establish the group following the pandemic but had experienced limited interest from patients. Plans were in place to re-launch the group once building works had been completed, with the service anticipating that improved facilities and expanded services would encourage greater participation.

Verified National GP Patient Survey results (2026) showed patient experience in this area was lower than both local and national averages. When asked whether the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening, 78% of respondents gave a positive response, compared with 85% locally and 87% nationally. Feedback received during the assessment, including from care homes, was consistently positive. People told us that staff took the time to listen to them, understand their views, and respond to their individual needs. Patients reported that they were given sufficient time during consultations to discuss their concerns and ask questions about their care and treatment. People described the service as friendly, helpful and kind.

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

At the time of the assessment, the premises were undergoing building works to extend the practice, which required the use of an alternative entrance while the work was completed. The service had implemented appropriate measures to maintain safe and accessible access, including the installation of a temporary ramp and the use of wider doorways to support people with mobility needs. Arrangements had also been put in place to minimise disruption and ensure people could continue to access care through a range of routes, including online services and telephone contact. Staff demonstrated that these changes had not adversely affected access to the practice or increased waiting times for patients seeking support.

National GP Patient Survey results for 2026 reflected positive patient experience regarding access to the service by phone, website and NHS App.

When asked about their experience of contacting the practice through the NHS App, 66% of respondents gave a positive response, when compared with 54% locally and 54% nationally.

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 received during the assessment from both partner organisations and people using the service was positive. People told us that staff took account of any barriers they may face and worked to ensure services were accessible and responsive to their individual needs. Routine home visits and regular face-to-face visits to care home residents supported people who were unable to attend the practice and helped maintain continuity of care. For people who did not communicate fluently in English, language needs were recorded on their patient records and interpreter services were available, including face-to-face interpreters where appropriate. Due to the temporary arrangements associated with the ongoing building works, there was no visual information available in languages other than English at the time of the assessment. However, the provider advised that multilingual signage and key information resources would be incorporated into the new premises. Reasonable adjustments and personal preferences were clearly documented within patient records, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of these requirements. Systems were in place to flag adjustments so that people did not have to repeatedly explain their needs, helping to improve accessibility and provide a more personalised experience.

The service supported a higher than average number of people who found reading, writing, or communicating in English challenging. Individual communication needs and preferred methods of contact were clearly documented within patient records to help ensure information was provided in a way that people could understand. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the population they served and took the time to get to know people and their individual needs.

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.

The service worked closely with the local hospice and six care homes across the Primary Care Network (PCN) area to ensure people received coordinated and person-centred care. Feedback from care homes was highly positive, particularly regarding the support provided to people receiving palliative and end-of-life care. Care home staff told us that people were given sufficient time to discuss their wishes, preferences, and treatment options, enabling them to make informed decisions. A review of patient records showed that decisions relating to Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) were clearly documented and reflected people's wishes. ReSPECT forms were available, appropriately completed, and reviewed when required. Records demonstrated a joined-up approach between the GP practice, local hospice, and care homes, helping to ensure care was delivered consistently and in line with people's preferences at the end of life.