Fellview Healthcare

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 provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 provider 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.

In the National GP Patient Survey carried out in 2025, 89% of people surveyed at this practice felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. This was broadly in line with both the national (92%) and local (93%) averages.

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. For example, they had a dedicated care home team who arranged seasonal vaccines and carried out regular ward rounds in local care homes.

There were Mental Health Advanced Nurse Practitioners who worked with patients who needed extra support with their mental wellbeing. These practitioners provided continuity of care.

Patient feedback about care provision and continuity of care was mixed, with a number of patients expressing concern that referrals were not made in a timely manner, but others praising staff for getting them the support they needed. Where there were specific concerns, we raised these with leaders at the practice, who told us they would carry out an audit of referrals and triaging appointments to ensure that patients were being offered the care they needed. Since the assessment, we have seen evidence that these audits have been started.

The practice also operated a system called “Every Contact Counts” whereby patients would, with consent, have their blood pressure, pulse, and weight recorded at every appointment, regardless of the reason they were attending. This was to keep an overall measure of a patient’s well-being and to ensure their care was always appropriate. We saw evidence that this approach had identified multiple cases of atrial fibrillation (an irregular heartbeat which can lead to stroke) and appropriate treatment had been offered as a result.

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

The practice had access to interpreter services and documents could be provided in languages other than English.

The practice communicated through social media, its website, the patient participation group, and noticeboards.

The practice had processes in place to identify, record, and meet patients’ individual communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Communication needs were assessed at the point of registration and updated when patients informed the practice of any changes in their circumstances. Relevant information was recorded and coded on the clinical system, with alerts used to ensure that staff were aware of any specific requirements.

In the National GP Patient Survey carried out in 2025, 86% of people surveyed at this practice knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice. This was in line with both the national (83%) and local (85%) averages.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

In the National GP Patient Survey carried out in 2025, 91% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their appointments. This was in line with both the national (91%) and local (92%) averages. Patient feedback we received as part of the assessment was also mostly positive about clinical staff involving patients in their care.

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 complaints. For example, we saw evidence of practice-wide staff learning following a complaint from a patient, in order to improve the service offered to a particular group of patients. The practice also held a patient-led teaching session following a complaint from a relative of a patient.. The provider had a dedicated Patient Experience Team that helped to handle and investigate complaints and look for trends.

The provider had made changes to ensure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it, and had seen improvements in patient feedback as a result. However, patient feedback in this area remained below average and there was room for further improvements to be made.

The 2024 National GP Patient Survey showed only 9% of patients found it easy to contact the practice by phone, and 12% via the website, both significantly below national and local averages. In the 2025 survey, the scores for these questions remained below average, but had improved to 19% and 47% respectively, while local and national averages remained largely unchanged. The practice had also conducted their own survey in May 2025, which found that 24% of people found it easy to contact the practice by phone, and 54% found it easy via the website.

Following the 2024 survey, the practice had moved to a total triage system, whereby all requests for appointments were transferred to an online system (eConsult) to be triaged by an on-duty GP, who then decided the best course of action for a patient. This could be a face-to-face appointment, a telephone appointment, or a referral to another service. We spoke to the GP on duty on the day of the site visit, who showed us there were systems in place to ensure decisions remained consistent and to help clinicians determine the best course of action for patients. We also saw that the practice had carried out an extensive patient education campaign to help them to understand the new system.

Patient feedback we received as part of this assessment was mixed, with many patients praising the system as an improvement, but an equal number telling us they found the system hard to use or that communication around it needed to improve. We were told that a message on the online system told patients they would get a response from the practice within a certain time frame, but that this did not always happen. We also heard that patients were being asked to fill in online forms even when they had contacted the practice by telephone. We raised these concerns with the practice, and with regard to the filling in of forms, we saw that patients were asked if they felt able to do this, to free up space on the telephone lines. If they did not, receptionists would fill the form in with them whilst on the phone. We saw examples of this on the day and were given examples of times when this had happened in the patient feedback. With regard to the responses, we were told that the messages patients received were automated and did not always match clinician decisions. Since the assessment, we have seen that this has been made clearer to patients, and an audit has been set up to ensure that all patients who require follow up are contacted.

We checked the appointment system on the day of the site visit and saw there were urgent appointments with GPs and nurses available the same day, and routine appointments available within 3 working days. We also saw that routine appointments that had been embargoed could be changed to accommodate urgent on-the-day appointments if needed.

All practice sites offered appointments and treatment on the ground floor, there was car parking available, and level access to the buildings. A bell at one of the practice sites which could be used by patients who needed support to access the building was found not to be working, but the practice fixed this the same day.

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.

Leaders explained that the practice had a flexible registration procedure to accommodate individuals who faced barriers to accessing healthcare services, such as those who had no fixed address or asylum seekers. This included accepting alternative forms of identification or proof of address, waiving administrative or ID requirements, and helping with completing registration forms.

We saw that staff understood the importance of an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in patients' experiences and outcomes. They informed us that interpreters were available and that documents could be provided in languages other than 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. We saw that 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.