Balfour 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. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Inadequate. At this assessment, the rating is Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. During our assessment of this key question, we found the provider had a good understanding of the local population and complied with the accessible information standards. They had arrangements in place to identify peoples’ communication needs and preferences. There were mechanisms in place for collecting and acting on patient feedback. The provider actively monitored the accessibility of their appointment system to ensure it remained patient focused.

This service scored 75 (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. They were given advice to understand their care and treatment options. Patients told us they felt involved and supported in decisions about their care. We saw examples of how staff and leaders put patients at the centre of their care and treatment, including patients with a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) in place. There was a record of a discussion signed by the patient and / or their legal representative.

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. 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.

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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They had a complaints policy in place, and information on how to complain was readily available at the practice. Complaints were appropriately handled and dealt with, and learning was discussed and shared with all staff during team meetings. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. The practice had received 12 complaints during the period January 2024 – February 2025. We examined all of these and found that the responses were in line with the practice policy and procedure. There was a central log of complaints, which enabled monitoring of any trends. We saw that complaints were discussed at practice meetings and the learning was shared to make improvements. An example of this was evidence that staff had received additional training on appointment scheduling to enable them to allocate appointments which respected individual needs.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In response to the 2024 National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example they had installed a digital telephone system, introduced a phlebotomy clinic within the practice an online system, and extended appointments for people with a learning disability. The practice had made changes to improve access to appointments, including moving to a care navigation approach to booking appointments. Patients were asked to give some brief details about their concern to allow their request to be triaged. They eased the early morning rush on the telephones by allocating more staff to answering calls. This helped to ease the pressure on the reception staff and allowed more patients to get through on the telephone to book an appointment. Leaders regularly monitored and reviewed telephones calls to make improvements to the patient access experience. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. Treatment rooms were accessible, they were available on the ground floor and a ramp 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 and leaders were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of patients using their service. Physical premises were accessible, and the practice had reviewed barriers to care to improve people’s experience. The practice had processes to ensure patients could register at the practice including those with no fixed abode such as people experiencing homelessness.

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. This included patient wishes about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and end-of-life care. This information was shared with other services when necessary.