Modality Mid Sussex

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 Inadequate. This was because patients were unable to access services in a timely way. At this inspection we saw that the practice had made improvements. However, these improvements were not embedded and there was limited evidence to show that patient experience had improved. At this assessment, the rating has changed to 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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The practice decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. The results of the national GP patient survey indicated that people felt they were involved in decisions about their care.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. We saw examples of how the provider had developed services to meet the needs of its community. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community. For example, care coordinators and social prescribers had begun conducting home visit assessments, ensuring that patients who struggled to attend in-person appointments still received the support they needed. Patients with neurodiverse conditions, sensory sensitivities, or learning disabilities were supported with quiet appointment slots, waiting in their car until called, and alternative entry routes to avoid crowded waiting areas.

The practice supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

At registration, the need for reasonable adjustments were recorded, ensuring tailored support from the outset. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The practice made it possible for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The practice engaged positively with the local community. Since our last inspection it had held a series of face-to-face patient engagement sessions which enabled patients to take part in open discussion and group work. The issues raised were incorporated into the practice’s improvement plan. The sessions were also available for patients to watch on-line.

In October 2024 the practice held a series of road shows and ‘drop-ins’ prior to the launch of its on-line appointment system. This allowed patients to explore the new system alongside the practice team, patient participation group (PPG), and patient champions. These hands-on sessions aimed to build confidence with the system and reduce anxiety.

There was an active PPG. We spoke with the chair of the group who told us the practice worked collaboratively with the group. They told us the practice listened and responded to concerns. For example, the PPG had worked with the patient services assistants to improve the response and advice given to patients when they called. They told us the practice had improved communication with patients and regularly utilised social media and text messaging to keep patients informed.

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 because of patient feedback, including the national GP patient survey, friends and family test and complaints.

The practice did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to our last assessment, data from the national GP patient survey and feedback from patients, the practice had implemented changes to improve access. It had introduced an on-line appointment system in October 2024 and successfully recruited and retained additional permanent GPs, allied healthcare professionals, practice nurses, healthcare assistants, and non-clinical staff. GP appointment capacity had increased from approximately 4,200 in May 2023 to 5200 in February 2025. It was able to demonstrate a reduction in call waiting and an increase in calls answered. Attendances at accident and emergency departments had also reduced.

Feedback received by CQC during the inspection period suggested some patients were finding it quicker to get through on the phone and easier to make a straightforward appointment using the new online system. However, most of the patients we heard from had difficulties with the system. Staff also had some concerns. Key themes included: difficulties for those who were digitally excluded, especially the elderly; the inability for some to travel longer distances to branch sites; inappropriately being directed to the wrong clinician or to AE, and urgent care services; difficulties making follow up appointments and unhelpful staff in some instances. We saw that the practice was aware of the difficulties patients were experiencing and had taken steps to address them. For example, the practice had enabled a free text option in the system so that people could make administrative requests but also describe their symptoms in more detail. They also planned to set up regular digital inclusion workshops to familiarise people with the system and build confidence. The practice had also amended pathways in the system so that GPs triaged appointments made with certain advanced health care practitioners. The practice had a plan in place to enable continuous improvements to access.

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.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with the local community to do this. 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. Staff had systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English.

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 practice had implemented a structured, patient-centred approach to Advance Care Planning (ACP) to ensure dignity, comfort, and informed choices. Information regarding advanced directives and preferred place of death was captured and shared with other services when necessary.