The Southall 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 in January 2015, we rated this key question as good.

At this assessment in July 2026, the rating remains the same because we found no issues with person-centred care, equality, diversity and inclusion.

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. 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.

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, the service had regular meetings with the local multidisciplinary teams to ensure continuity of care for the patients. There were registers on the clinical system for various patient groups and there were alerts on the system to notify the staff about the care needs of the people.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There were leaflets in various languages available at the waiting area for the patients. The practice had access to interpreter services. Information provided met the Accessible information standard. Staff assisted the people to use the NHS App correctly to access their care records.

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, including complaints.

The service provided people with access to the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the previous National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability.

However, from the National GP Patient survey data of 2026, people were not satisfied with the level of access to services by contacting the service on the phone. The data showed that 48% of the respondents found it easy to contact the practice on the phone which was below local (62%) and national (57%) averages. Fifty per cent of the respondents had a good overall experience of contacting the practice which was below the local (73%) and national (73%) averages. Forty-three per cent of the respondents found it easy to contact the practice using their website which was below the local (57%) and national (58%) averages. The provider had not yet gained feedback from the patients to understand the reasons for the low scores above to sufficiently develop an action plan to address the concerns. However, the practice had improved the phone system for patients as shown by unverified data used by the practice to assess the improvement steps taken by the practice. Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. 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 regardless of their circumstances. 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. The service had a named staff as a champion for people on palliative care to support them and their families including when a bereavement occurred.