Porters Avenue Doctors Surgery

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 requires improvement as we found performance data regarding patient satisfaction was significantly below local and national averages. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good as results from the survey had shown an increased level of patient satisfaction, although it remains below national and local averages. We also considered efforts to improve patient satisfaction, evidence through practice in-house surveys and patients we spoke to during the assessment.

This service scored 68 (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 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. Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 78% of patients felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

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.

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, such as local care homes, 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 promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

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, and benefitted from a diverse administrative team who spoke different languages. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. Feedback from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that 84% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last appointment.

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

We reviewed the service’s complaints in the last 12 months and saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. From our examination of meeting minutes and conversations held with staff members, we saw learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of patient feedback.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Patients we spoke to during the site visit, as well as patient feedback to the CQC, showed some patients found it difficult to access the service to obtain appointments. Results from the National GP Patient Survey showed that 36% of patients found it easy to access the GP through the phone. Whilst this is an improvement from the 18% satisfaction levels from the previous inspection, it is still below the local average of 51% and the national average of 53%. Results from the survey also showed that 42% of respondents found it easy to contact the GP through the practice website.

The practice told us the National GP Patient Survey represented a small number of patient views, as there was a total of 94 responses to the survey out of a practice population of 22,000 patients. Nevertheless, the practice recognised some patients found it difficult to access the practice and had introduced several measures to improve access. For example, the practice had introduced a cloud-based telephony system, made appointments available on Saturdays and provided different routes to digital access.

The practice regularly reviewed access data, conducted audits reviewed by governance leads and reported into performance meetings. For instance, an analysis of data from one of the practice’s digital platform showed there had been an increase of 513 requests submitted in October 2025 compared to October 2024, and an improvement in clinical triage response time, which decreased from 14 minutes to 4 minutes.

An in-house survey, carried out in October 2025 which gathered 194 responses, showed that 77% of patients found it very easy or easy to book appointments and 74% of patients found it very easy or easy to speak to the practice via telephone. Through this survey, the practice identified themes to incorporate into their action plan to further increase patient satisfaction levels. Patients were requested to provide feedback after each appointment.

The practice launched a dermatology e-hub in which patients could self-refer for dermatology requests. Results showed 99% of requests had been reviewed within 48 hours and had increased appointment and phone capacity for other patients.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance.

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 local organisations to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. For example, the practice supported people considering gender transitioning and worked with gender identity clinics to provide shared care. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

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.

However, during our site visit and review of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) records, we found 3 of out 4 DNACPR records were not uploaded onto the patient’s record. These records were obtained by the end of the site visit and were uploaded onto the patient’s record.