The 157 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 the practice 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.

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

The practice was open from 8.00 am to 6.30 pm from Monday to Friday. It offered face to face and telephone appointments. Home visits were available in appropriate circumstances, according to clinical need. Appointments outside the standard operating times and at weekends were available at a number of enhanced access service locations around the borough.

The practice performed better than national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the practice when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the practice’s website. For example, 62% of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact the practice on the phone, compared to a national average of 53% and local average of 55%. 66% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using their website, compared to a national average of 51% and local average of 50%. 48% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS app, compared to a national average of 49% and local average of 46%.

The practice demonstrated responsiveness to patient feedback. Patient concerns regarding access and appointment availability led to the introduction of a total triage system. A GP reviewed all request, prioritised patients with the most urgent needs and either offered a face to face or telephone appointment or signposted to other appropriate services such as a pharmacy.

All treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a portable ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the practice. The practice had extended appointments for people with a reasonable adjustment. Disabled toilet facilities were accessible.

We saw that the practice offered a foreign language phone translation service and the practice website had a translation facility for patients for whom English was an additional language. A British Sign Language practitioner could be booked for patients with hearing impairment, and there was an induction loop available in reception; however, staff were unable to explain its purpose or demonstrate how to use it.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard, provided easy-read material on a range of topics available for patients with learning disabilities. The practice website included a facility that allowed patients to complete a foreign travel risk assessment and book any necessary vaccinations.

Staff and leaders 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 to address any local health inequalities. For example, patients whose circumstances made them vulnerable such as those with a learning disability or dementia were offered appointments at quieter times. Staff received Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, and Human Rights training.

The practice was registered as a “Safe Surgery” (a practice that has pledged to provide equitable access to healthcare for everyone in their community, particularly those in vulnerable circumstances, such as migrants, travellers and people experiencing homelessness).

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff used systems to capture and review feedback from people who used the practice, which included those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

The practice introduced Artificial Intelligence scribe technology, which it reported led to notable improvements in the ability to deliver more focused, efficient, and patient-centred consultations.

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.