Royal Primary Care Brooklyn

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. This is the first assessment for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

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. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and involved in planning for their care needs. Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of people including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. For example, people with a learning disability were provided with easy read invite letters and were sent reminders the day before their appointment. They were also sent up to 4, instead of the usual 2, reminders if they did not attend their appointments. Systems were in place to promote the uptake of bowel cancer screening for this group of people. For example, data sharing agreements were in place with the specialist nurses at Chesterfield Royal Hospital, advising when people with a learning disability were referred into them so they could provide an enhanced service.

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. The practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. For example, Chesterfield Royal Hospital, Derbyshire Carer’s Association and the local Primary Care Network (PCN). The PCN provided wellbeing clinics for checks such as blood pressure monitoring and pulse checks. At the last session, 90 people attended the clinic and 2 people from Royal Primary care Brooklyn were identified with potential health concerns which the practice followed up. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, carers, people living in care homes and people with a learning disability.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. For example, easy read material for people with a learning disability and large print letters for people that were visually impaired. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language and a member of staff that could sign. People were informed about how to access their care records. For example, the social prescriber had run digital drop in clinics for people to provide training on online services and the NHS app. Leaders told us they had received positive feedback from people and as a result of the clinics more people were using the online services.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff we spoke with were aware of how to support people to complain or give feedback. The service involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Two representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) told us that they felt the views of the PPG were listened to and acted on. For example, their request for a phlebotomist within the practice to take bloods for testing. The practice had received 10 complaints within the last 12 months. Our review of 2 of these complaints showed that complaints were handled in line with the practice’s complaints policy. Learning from complaints was shared across all 4 Royal Primary Care practices through team meetings, face to face or emails.

There were systems in place so people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could book appointments through the NHS app, website, the online appointment request form, over the telephone or in person. They were offered either a remote or face to face consultation. Data from the national GP Survey showed that 66% of respondents were positive about their overall experience of contacting their GP practice. This was comparable with the national average of 67%. Data showed that 43% of respondents responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone. This was comparable with the national average of 50% but was low. Data from the GP Appointments Data Dashboard showed that the appointment rate per 1,000 people was below the local and national averages. However, the percentage of appointments offered within 14 days of booking and same day GP appointments were above the local and national averages. The percentage of face to face appointments offered was slightly below the local and national averages. Feedback from people received by the CQC was mixed. We received 14 positive and 11 negative comments regarding access to appointments. Feedback received from the Patient Participation Group, Healthwatch, the Friends and Family Survey and the NHS website was also mixed.

To attempt to improve access, the provider had signed up to the GP Improvement Program to focus on the triaging and handling of phone calls. Consequently, the triage tool was updated, better metrics identified and the telephony system was upgraded which enabled the use of call backs and analysis of calls received, answered and missed.The provider shared unverified data with the CQC which showed that the average call wait time per month at the practice was low, with an average of 4.4 minutes in 2025 and 2.6 minutes in 2024.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, the reception area had been adapted to suit the needs of people that used a wheelchair and there was a lift to the first floor. Two representatives from the Patient Participation Group (PPG), told us that concerns had been raised regarding access to the practice for people that used wheelchairs or mobility scooters. They told us that the practice was trying to access funding to improve this. We found there was a call bell at the front door for this group of people to use to request assistance. However, there was no dedicated parking spaces for people with a mobility issue. Leaders told us that an electric door and disabled parking bay had been costed and was on their action plan.

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 review of records showed that people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services such as the out of hours service when necessary.