Knoll 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 patients’ needs, and that staff treated patients 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 79 (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 patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

The provider had identified that the annual review for patients with a severe mental illness required several different appointments with different staff members. The provider implemented an approach where patients saw the same GP for every review and were only required to attend one appointment to complete their review. Data provided by the practice showed that there was an increase in reviews from 68.9% (74 patients) in 2022/23, to 94.8% (106 patients) in 2023/24 to 100% (115 patients) in 2024/25.

Unverified data showed documented care plan reviews for patients with a severe mental illness were higher in the practice population (84.8%) than local (72.9%) and national averages (69.4%).

The project resulted in improved continuity for patients by seeing the same GP each time, and more efficient use of appointments by completing the review in one visit.

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 patients 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, building relationships with community groups to explore barriers to access.

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

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved patients 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.

National GP Patient Survey data collected between January and March 2025 showed lower than average patient satisfaction when respondents were asked for their views on access. 28% of respondents found it easy to get through to the practice by telephone (the local average was 53% and the national average was 53%) and 58% of respondents described their experience of contacting the practice as good (the local average was 68% and the national average was 70%).

The practice had used this data and feedback from the patient population to identify changes to improve the service. Requests for appointments were via an online form. Patients who found it difficult to use the form were able to contact the practice by telephone or in person and a member of staff would complete the form for them. The practice held drop-in sessions to support patients with digital access. Clinicians had developed a set of questions to be sent to patients who provided limited information in their form to ensure effective triage of each patient.

The telephone line contained different options to direct patients to the most appropriate department, for example, appointments, prescriptions or test results. The telephone message could be changed to include relevant information, for example at the time of our inspection, there was information about a meningitis outbreak affecting the local area. These changes helped to encourage patients to use the most appropriate method of communication with the practice, freeing up the telephone lines for patients with this particular need or preference.

The practice regularly reviewed data relating to the telephone systems and appointment requests. As a result, demand was monitored and changes were made to the GP rotas to ensure patients had timely access to appointments. The practice had worked on a quality improvement project to direct patients to use the NHS app, meaning an alternative method of contact was available for patients wishing to view their health records, or request repeat prescriptions. Feedback shared by the practice and patients who contacted CQC directly was positive about access to appointments.

At the time of our assessment the service was due to launch a digital voice assistant for reception which will be able to handle patient requests via telephone. This system would be able to handle a high volume of requests at any one time, and it was anticipated that this would result in faster responses to requests. The practice had surveyed patients prior to implementation and taken onboard suggestions and comments from patients. For example, a request to ensure the digital assistant could speak up had been shared with the developers to support patients who are hard of hearing.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients 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 patients using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive. Staff treated patients equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving patients’ 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 patients’ experience and outcomes. For example, autistic patients and patients with a learning disability could choose for their appointment to take place during quieter times, such as early in the morning or later in the afternoon.

The provider had processes to ensure patients could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless patients and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from patients using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

Patients 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 patients were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.