Keele 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

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC with the provider North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust. This key question has been rated as Good.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. Clinician-led triage, strong operational oversight and appropriately trained staff enabled prompt identification and management of urgent needs, while patient feedback indicated that services were responsive and effective in meeting people’s urgent needs. People received fair and equal care and treatment.

The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

The practice actively engaged with the Patient Participation Group and local Healthwatch, using feedback to inform and implement service improvements.

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.

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. Standard consultation times of 15 minutes enabled meaningful patient engagement and supported holistic assessments. Feedback from the National GP Patient Survey data found that 92% of respondents were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was in line with the local average of 91% and national average of, 92%.

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 promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice worked in partnership to deliver a targeted support such as social prescribing interventions for frequent attenders. Patients received holistic,personalised support addressing wider determinants of health, including mental health, financial advice, housing, and community engagement.

The practice had considered the needs of university students, children and young people within its recall system for long-term conditions, cancer screening programmes and immunisations, recognising that birthday-month recalls were less effective for students who may be away from university during holiday periods.

The practice maintained regular and effective engagement with Keele Counselling Services to support referral pathways and provide specialist mental health advice for students. Collaborative working included monthly Keele University wellbeing drop-in sessions involving NHS Talking Therapies and PAT dog support, as well as mental health promotion activities during Freshers’ Week, registration events, welcome days and university open days.

The practice also worked in partnership with the university to develop mental health e-learning resources for staff as part of the University Mental Health Charter programme. Through these established relationships, patients and students were provided with timely information, advice, signposting and access to local mental health and wellbeing services. This proactive and integrated approach helped promote early intervention, improve awareness of available support, and enhance access to appropriate care for the student population.

Continuity and consistency of care were strengthened by a stable clinical workforce and minimal reliance on locum staff. The practice had developed strong, collaborative relationships with multidisciplinary professionals, and staff knew patients well, particularly those who attended regularly. This enabled the delivery of more personalised and responsive care.

A review of clinical systems demonstrated that referrals were made promptly, and information received from external services was managed effectively and in a timely manner, supporting safe, coordinated care.

Services were designed to meet the diverse needs of the local population, with a clear continuing focus on reducing barriers to access. The practice worked closely with the Patient Participation Group, invited the local Healthwatch team and listened and were able actioned the feedback provided. The practice made appropriate reasonable adjustments for patients requiring additional support, including access to interpretation and translation services, and demonstrated compliance with the Accessible Information Standard. This helped ensure patients received information in a format they could understand, promoting inclusion, equality and equitable access to the provision of care.

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 practice ensured patients were well informed and supported through a variety of accessible communication methods, including easy read formats, an up-to-date website, a social media page and a text messaging service.

As part of the Primary Care Network, patients had access to Health and Wellbeing Coaches who provided holistic support to promote both physical and mental wellbeing. Patients were signposted to a range of services, including those offering support with weight management, healthy eating, stress, low mood and social isolation. Information was also available about the First Contact Physiotherapy service and the Social Prescribing team, enabling patients to access appropriate support without the need for a GP appointment.

The practice website further enhanced access to support by providing a range of online self-help resources, including information for carers, bereavement support services, and links to wellbeing and community-based organisations. This helped patients access timely advice and support tailored to their individual needs.

The practice’s online access request system supported patients to communicate in their preferred language. Patients could submit requests in their first language through the practice’s electronic software system, which automatically translated the content into English for clinical and administrative staff. Responses written by staff in English were then translated back into the patient’s preferred language, helping to reduce communication barriers and improve equitable access to services for patients whose first language was not English.

The waiting areas provided a wide range of health and wellbeing resources, including leaflets, posters and display boards covering key topics such as the Patient Participation Group, ‘You Said, We Did’ feedback, carers and veteran support.

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.

Information about how to make a complaint was readily available, and patients could raise concerns in person or through the practice website. The practice adopted a proportionate approach to complaint handling. Some concerns were resolved promptly through direct discussions with patients, while others were managed through the formal complaints process. The complaint records we reviewed were comprehensive and well documented.

The practice maintained a complaints summary spreadsheet to support oversight and monitoring. There was an opportunity to further strengthen this process by enhancing the recording of trend analysis and evidence of actions taken to demonstrate that learning had been embedded and sustained over time. Staff were able to clearly describe how learning from complaints, patient feedback and significant events had informed changes to practice and service delivery.

The practice used the Friends and Family Test (FFT) to gather patient feedback. They had reviewed and analysed their FFT results over the last 12 months and the evidence demonstrated the majority (81%) of patients were ‘extremely likely’ or ‘likely’ to recommend the practice to friends and family.

We spoke with patients on the day of the onsite assessment and received positive feedback on the care and treatment people received. We also saw evidence of the practice’s commitment to patient feedback through the display of a ‘you said, we did’ board, which highlighted actions the practice had taken in response to patient feedback.

There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) in place, and we saw promotion of this in the reception area. We obtained feedback from a member of the group who told us that their views were genuinely valued and that they were meaningfully involved in shaping service improvements and enhancing the patient experience. The practice shared learning and listened to the PPG in making further improvements.

The service actioned responses to National GP Patient Survey data. The practice demonstrated an effective patient-centred approach to access and demand management. They had consciously moved away from a “one problem per consultation” model, recognising that this can fragment care and disproportionately disadvantage their population. Instead, they promoted continuity and holistic care, with 15-minute standard appointments.

Approaches to access and demand were ongoing data and feedback led which had led to innovative ways of working. Access was via one-line electronic software systems, which could be completed online, via phone and face to face. Patients with the most urgent clinical needs (Red) were identified quickly and prioritised for same-day or urgent assessment. Patients requiring review within 2 to 3 working days (Amber) were allocated appointments within an appropriate timeframe. Routine problems (Green) were managed within appropriate time frames. All requests were subject to clinical triage.

Access arrangements were monitored through a monthly Access and Operations meeting attended by key operational and clinical leads. The needs of the student population had led to tweaks in the systems for example for routine bookings which instead of being open during practice opening hours were available 24/7 for completion.

Some patients we spoke with fed back that they had chosen not to use the online service but did provide the information via the staff on the phone which had worked well. The data collected by the service included the percentage of requests which were made by the reception team on a patients' behalf. For example, in April 2026 5.21% requests and in May 2026, 3.61%. Patients we spoke with reported that the reception staff at Keele Practice were exceptionally patient, supportive and responsive to their questions and queries.

Treatment rooms were available on the ground floor for patients with physical disability and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance, the first floor was accessible via a staircase only.

Leaders demonstrated a proactive approach to identifying and addressing barriers that could affect people’s experience of care, working collaboratively with local partners, including voluntary sector organisations, to reduce health inequalities within the community.

Staff recognised the importance of delivering inclusive, person-centred care and made reasonable adjustments to promote equitable access, experiences and outcomes for all patients. The practice had effective arrangements in place to support patient registration, including for individuals in vulnerable circumstances such as people experiencing homelessness and members of Traveller communities. Systems were established to gather and review feedback from all groups of patients, including those who did not speak English or lacked access to digital services.

The provider had taken additional steps to improve access for underserved groups. The practice was accredited as a ‘Safe Surgery,’ demonstrating its commitment to removing barriers to healthcare for people who were homeless, living in temporary accommodation, seeking asylum or facing other challenges in accessing services. Inaddition, the practice held Veteran Accreditation, reflecting its commitment to recognising and responding to the specific needs of military veterans.

Feedback from the National Patient Survey 2026 demonstrated that 67% of respondents described their overall experience of the practice as good. This was lower when compared to both the local average of 80% and the national average of 77%. However, this did demonstrate a 1% improvement from the 2025 survey results. There were 103 survey responses in both the 2025 and 2026 surveys. Of the 20 indicators assessed, 14 demonstrated an improvement in patient satisfaction compared with the previous year's results, four showed a decline, and two remained largely unchanged. Additionally, six indicators showed increased patient satisfaction scores and performed slightly above both the local and national averages.

The service completed a patient experience and care survey reports and put action plans in place for further improvements. Which included targeted engagement with diverse populations, optimising access and demand management, improving care coordination awareness and using data to continue to drive improvements.

The service worked collaboratively as part of a wider group with 3 Primary Care Networks working towards neighbourhood teams, integrating general practice and community services. This partnership approach was to further enable the delivery of flexible, coordinated, and responsive care.

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 demonstrated a clear understanding of, and consistently applied, legislation and guidance relating to consent and decision-making. Capacity assessments and consent discussions were appropriately documented within patient records. Where Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions had been made, these were completed appropriately and in accordance with relevant legislation and national guidance. People were supported to plan for significant life changes and future care needs, including end-of-life care, enabling them to make informed choices about their treatment and preferences.

The practice-maintained registers for vulnerable patients, including those receiving palliative care and individuals approaching the end of life, to help ensure coordinated and personalised support. During the assessment, clinicians demonstrated a good understanding of the legal requirements relating to consent and capacity, and records reviewed showed that consent discussions were clearly documented.

Systems were in place to ensure staff remained up to date with training relevant to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Records confirmed that staff had completed the required training and were supported to apply this knowledge appropriately in their day-to-day practice. This helped ensure that patient rights were respected and that care was delivered in line with current legal and professional standards.