Dunsville 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 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.

Dunsville Medical Centre made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Although CQC received two items of feedback raising concerns about appointment access, including difficulties obtaining appointments, telephone access, and limited advance booking options, this was not consistent with the findings of the 2026 National GP Patient Survey. In that survey, the service performed better than the national average in several areas, indicating that people could access care, support and treatment when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, including by telephone, in person and through the service's website.

For example, 85% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of the practice as being good (compared to a national average of 77%), and 86% of respondents described their overall experience of contacting the practice as good (compared to a national average of 73%).

We saw that 76% of respondents also stated that they found it easy to get through to the practice by phone (compared to a national average of 57%), and 65% of respondents stated that they found it easy to contact the practice using their website (compared to a national average of 58%).

The same survey reported that 82% of respondents stated that they waited about the right amount of time for their last GP appointment (compared to a national average of 69%).

Accessibility within the practice was also noted to be good during our visit, with treatment rooms located on the ground floor and an automatic door in place at the entrance. Patients could access the upper consulting rooms via a stair lift, and there was a disabled parking area available in the rear car park next to the back door, which was accessible via a ramp. A hearing loop was available at reception for patients with hearing impairment.

Staff and leaders at Dunsville Medical Centre 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.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. In the 3 months prior to our visit, no one had been refused registration at the practice, on the grounds of vulnerable circumstances.

Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the practice, and during our assessment, we heard how learning from complaints and significant events was shared with staff.

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.