Rushden 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 that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. We rated this key question as Requires Improvement.

This service scored 57 (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 endeavoured to make people at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Patient appointments were provided by a range of clinicians.

Data from the National GP Patient Survey however showed that 67% of respondents felt theywere involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment, which was significantly below the national average of 92%.

In addition, 36% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at considering their mental wellbeing during their last appointment which was significantly below the national average of 75%.

The practice was actively working on using patient feedback data to make necessary adjustments to improve the service for patients. We saw evidence of an action plan being implemented from March 2026 to improve patient experience in response to patient feedback which covered four domains: access, telephone performance, staff interaction, and clinical communication and continuity.

The practice understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. The practice worked in partnership with other services to endeavour to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, the practice held regular multi-disciplinary team meetings and information about patients care and treatment needs was available to share between services as required.

The National GP Patient Survey results however highlighted 49% of patients felt they had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses, which was significantly below the national average of 70%.

The practice was actively working on improving the service for patients and addressing continuity of care for patients formed part of their action plan which had commenced in March 2026.

A range of health and wellbeing leaflets and posters were on display in the waiting area for patient information. In addition, the practice provided information for patients on social media, the practice website, and on the screens within the patient waiting area. Leaders told us they had also developed a practice Newsletter for patients to further provide information. In addition, there was also an internal newsletter developed for staff to keep staff informed and updated with any organisational news.

The information provided by the practice met the Accessible Information Standard. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Patients were informed about how to access their care records.

70% of respondents from the National GP Patient Survey however felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment which was significantly below the national average of 92%. 50% of patients reported they knew what the next step would be after contacting the practice which was significantly below the national average of 84%. However, 90% of patients reported they knew what the next step would be within two days of contacting their GP practice which was in line with the national average of 93%.

Leaders were aware of the feedback from patients, and we saw evidence of an action plan that had been implemented since March 2026 which included providing clinicians with refresher training on communication and listening skills; and improving documentation of patient concerns and shared decision making.

The practice made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas about their care and treatment. Feedback could be given verbally or in writing.

The practice had a complaints policy, and the Patient Experience Manager was the lead for handling complaints. Patients could make a complaint verbally, via the practice website, or by writing to the practice. The complaints process was advertised within the practice and on the practice website. Patients were signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) if they were not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint. Complaints were discussed during management and practice meetings and the lessons learnt were shared with staff.

From 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, the practice had received a total of 51 complaints. These complaints were analysed and 6 were upheld, 28 partially upheld, and 17 not upheld. The highest number of complaints related to Clinical Treatment (13), Appointments (10), and Communications (10).

The National GP Patient Survey data reported 50% of respondents said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment, which was in significantly below the national average of 86%.

Leaders were aware of patient dissatisfaction with the service as a result of complaints, the Friends and Family Test patient survey, and the National GP Patient Survey data; and had been working on a number of initiatives to improve patient experience. We saw evidence of an action plan in response to the patient feedback which had been implemented since March 2026. To address the issues of clinical communication, listening and continuity of care for patients; leaders had arranged for a clinical communication session for staff; the introduction of patient consultation conversation openers such as “What matters most for us to address today?”; audits of consultation notes to check for safety netting, documentation of concerns, and follow‑up plans; and improvements in continuity of care by promoting patient follow‑up appointments with the same clinician where possible.

We reviewed the Friends and Family Test data for the months of April, May and June 2026, to analyse if patient overall satisfaction with the service had improved in response to the practice action plan implemented from March 2026. We found there was a gradual improvement demonstrated. Data showed in April 2026, 30% of patients surveyed responded they would recommend the practice to family and friends. May 2026 data showed a slight improvement to 35% of patients surveyed. June 2026 data showed another improvement to 44% of patients surveyed responding they would recommend the practice to family and friends.

The practice was open from 8.00am to 18:30pm Monday to Friday. Patients could receive extended access appointments from 9:00am to 17:00pm on Saturday.

As part of our assessment, we assessed access to the practice premises. We found the practice was accessible for wheelchair users, and all consultation rooms were accessible on the ground floor. Disabled toilets were available as well as baby feeding and changing facilities. There was a car park with designated disabled parking spaces.

Various appointment types were available such as in person, online or telephone consultations. The practice introduced the ‘Anima’ digital triage and consultation platform in November 2024. The platform allows patients to submit medical or administrative requests (like fit/sick notes or test results) online rather than waiting in practice telephone queues. The triaging system used a traffic light process to prioritise patient appointments based on urgency.

Leaders explained whilst the practice operated an online triage process, they did not digitally exclude any patients. Patients were able to telephone the reception team or come into the practice if they were unable to complete the online triage form and the Care Navigators could complete this on their behalf.

As part of this assessment, we reviewed patient feedback in relation to their experience of accessing the service. Our review found the practice was not able to consistently demonstrate that patients could access care and treatment in a timely or equitable way. Patients reported experiencing significant difficulties obtaining appointments, long waits for routine appointments, challenges accessing the practice by telephone, and limited availability of appointments that met individual needs.

Latest National GP Patient Survey data relating to patient access to the service demonstrated scores significantly below the national averages. For example:

24% of respondents described their experience of contacting the practice as good, which was significantly below the national average of 73%.

15% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by telephone which was significantly below the national average of 57%.

8% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by their website, which was significantly below the national average of 58%.

11% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice by the NHS app, which was significantly below the national average of 54%.

32% of respondents felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last general practice appointment, which was significantly below the national average of 69%.

We also reviewed data from the NHS ‘Friends and Family Test’ for April, May and June 2026. For the question to patients: ‘With a score of 1 being ‘Difficult’ and 5 being ‘Exceptionally Easy,’ how easy is it to contact the practice?; April’s survey found 158 patients voted ‘1’; 66 voted ‘2’; 64 voted ‘3’; 44 voted ‘4’; and 31 voted ‘5.’ May’s survey found 17 patients voted ‘1’; 4 patients voted ‘2’; 2 patients voted ‘3’; 3 patients voted ‘4’; and 5 patients voted ‘5.’ June’s survey found 9 patients voted ‘1’; 10 patients voted ‘2’; 12 patients voted ‘3’; 10 patients voted ‘4’; and 9 patients voted ‘5.’ These results demonstrated a gradual improvement, and leaders told us they had implemented a number of action points from March 2026 to improve patient experience.

As part of CQC’s ‘Give Feedback on Care’ process, we received feedback about their experiences of the practice from 67 patients of which 2 were positive about their experience; and 65 were negative. Positive patient feedback included satisfaction with staff helpfulness, efficiency of the care received from clinicians, and access to appointments. Negative feedback included dissatisfaction with access to appointments, staff attitude, issues with the prescription process, and dissatisfaction with the clinical care and treatment received.

Although leaders recognised the issues and had begun implementing a number of improvements, these were not yet embedded or evidenced as effective. Leaders acknowledged this, and reported whilst improvements were still being worked on, they had started to see changes in patient experience and had recently received some positive reviews online and on social media.

Staff gave us examples of the changes they had made to improve access for patients, and we saw evidence of the action plan which had been implemented since the employment of the new practice manager in March 2026. For example, adjustments had been made to the appointment capacity and both on the day and urgent appointments had been increased; additional GPs had been recruited; the Anima online platform availability was increased to be accessible all day for patients; daily appointment availability updates were shared with patients on social media, the NHS App, and on the waiting room television screens; and follow-up appointment prompts were added to the IT clinical templates to ensure these appointments were booked before they left the practice following their consultation. In addition, the practice was working on making improvements to the text messaging questionnaires sent to patients; and were going to pilot appointment options for working patients for early morning or late afternoon appointment slots.

To improve patient experience of contacting the practice by telephone, the telephone system had been improved so if there were more than 4 people in the telephone queue, a call-back function was available; staff reception cover had been increased during busy periods; improvements were made to the telephone triage scripts to reduce the likelihood of any conflicting information being given to patients form staff; and weekly monitoring of telephone performance had been introduced by leaders to review data for telephone queue times, abandoned telephone calls, and telephone activity during peak periods.

To improve patient access and experience for patients who struggled with digital systems, leaders had arranged for a ‘Digital Help Desk’ at reception with support given to patients to use the Anima system and the NHS App; new simple step-by-step guides had been developed to help patients with booking appointments, ordering prescriptions, and updating their details; and staff were instructed to ensure they offered non-digital alternatives to patients and reinforce that telephone and in-person options remain available to them.

Staff were also actively referring patients to the Pharmacy First service where appropriate. Pharmacy First is a consultation service which enables patients to be referred into community pharmacy for a minor illness or an urgent repeat medicine supply. The service helps to free up GP appointments for patients who need them most and includes the supply of appropriate medicines for 7 common conditions including earache, sore throat, and urinary tract infections, aiming to address health issues before they get worse.

On 15 April 2026, the Superintendent Pharmacist at Rushden Pharmacy delivered a Pharmacy First training session for practice staff covering referral criteria, patient eligibility and the benefits of community pharmacy management. This formed part of ongoing collaborative work between the practice and the pharmacy to improve patient access to care through Pharmacy First. Data from February to May 2026 for the number of Pharmacy First referrals made by the practice showed a positive increase. In February, 7 referrals were made; in March, 16 were made; in April, 22 were made; and in May, 20 were made.

Overall, the practice had made a number of changes and had developed a comprehensive action plan to address the issues relating to access to the service for patients; however, these changes still required time to be embedded and patient satisfaction with the service they received remained requiring improvement.

We found staff treated people equally, without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improve people’s experiences.

Leaders had undertaken an analysis of the patient population assessing health needs and deprivation. Staff told us there were significant areas of deprivation within the practice geographical area and a high rate of patients experiencing long-term conditions. As such, leaders had arranged for more nursing time than average being provided for patients to accommodate this need.

As an accredited Veteran Friendly Practice, the practice demonstrated a proactive approach to supporting former members of the armed forces..

For patients with learning disabilities, the practice had a GP Learning Disability lead. Extended appointments were available for patients with learning disabilities and staff endeavoured to try to meet as many needs of these patients in one appointment.

For patients with visual impairments, clinicians put flags on these patients’ records to alert staff to provide assistance for them at reception. For patients with hearing impairments, clinicians put flags on these patients’ clinical records to alert staff of their needs and if they preferred text message communication. The practice was also equipped with a hearing loop system. For patients whose first language was not English, the practice was able to access interpreting services for them.

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. Our records review showed 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. Staff told us they reviewed patient ‘ReSPECT’ forms regularly to ensure these reflected patient’s current wishes and could be changed accordingly. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment. These forms create personalised recommendations for clinical care in emergency situations where people are not able to make decisions or express their wishes.

Palliative patients were able to have home visits and care packages to ensure their wishes were followed and carried out in their final stages of life. Clinicians worked collaboratively with District Nurses and the palliative care team to update patient care plans. Clinical palliative care meetings to review the care and treatment of patients on the palliative care register were conducted regularly once a month.