The Willows Medical 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

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. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

The patients GP Survey demonstrated that people had sufficient information which enabled them to be involved in decisions about their care and patients had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke with. Leaders explained they met regularly with multi-agency staff to discuss and improve outcomes for people with complex needs. The practice enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Following patient feedback in 2022/2023 the practice had improved the telephone system and this enabled the practice manager to evaluate the daily uptake and type of appointments and respond to demands. In addition, they had recruited two GP’s and extended other members of the clinical team.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. This was demonstrated by the GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 which had 120 responses, 96% of patients had definitely or to some extent confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to and 94% stated their needs were definitely or to some extent met. The patients’ responses for these categories were above the national and local area national averages. In addition, the practice had carried out their own survey in 2022/2023 and had responded to patient feedback by improving the telephone system. The 2024 patient survey carried out by their local primary care network demonstrated improvements.

The leaders explained they worked with multidisciplinary teams and other partners to enable co-ordinated patient care. The practice had been in involved with community engagement such as, diabetes awareness sessions and community coffee mornings at a local church and mosque. These had offered one to one session with a doctor, oxygen level, blood pressure checks and body mass index checks. For people who had frequently attended the practice, the staff had introduced a personalised and proactive approach by the GP partners engaging with patients directly through phone or face to face consultations. Staff said this had addressed health concerns whilst managing patient needs effectively. Frequent attenders were reduced from 374 to 33 patients.

Staff told us that 7% of the patient population were identified as carers who were recognised early and identified in the patient records so they could be provided with support.

Leaders explained they met regularly with multi-agency staff to discuss and improve outcomes for people with complex needs. The practice was actively involved in their local primary network, where they worked with other practices to improve the local health inequalities. Patients could book appointments online, through the digital hub or by telephone, longer appointments were offered to those with more complex needs. People in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers. The practice carried out the Safer Surgeries project in collaboration with Doctors of the World. This was a project that aimed to improve access to healthcare for migrants in vulnerable circumstances, particularly around registration. In addition, the practice was also part of pride in practice programme that supported primary care professionals to meet the needs of their LGBT patients. The practice staff engaged with external services such as community heart failure teams, diabetes specialist nurses, and mental health support for enhanced patient care.

The GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 120 responses. This found 91% of patients stated the health care professional to some extent or definitely had, the information they needed about them, which was in line with the national and local averages. Interpreters and support for patients with language barriers were available. The practice complied with accessible information standards, and all staff had completed GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) training. The practice had held patient engagement and self-management sessions, where they aimed to empower patients to take control of their health through education, self-monitoring tools and digital support.

The practice enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice had a patient participation forum and reviewed primary care network and GP survey feedback. The practice used a computer software system to collate and manage complaints, they had received eight complaints from January 2024 to present time. We examined a sample of complaints and found all had been managed satisfactorily and in a timely manner.

However, the computer software system, where complaints were recorded, would have benefited with further details. Information about how to complain was readily available. We saw from meeting minutes that complaints were a standing agenda in clinical and practice team meetings. The practice had a complaints procedure last reviewed in January 2025 and a complaint’s form on their website.

The GP national patient survey carried out from January to March 2024 had 120 responses. This found 66% of patients had a fairly to very good experience of contacting the practice, 89% found the reception staff fairly to very helpful. Thirty nine percent of patients found contact through the website fairly to very easy. and 43% of patients found it fairly to very easy to contact the practice by phone.

Following patient feedback in 2022/23, the practice had implemented a new telephone system which enabled receptionist to monitor the patient calls and respond to their needs. The receptionist manager explained this meant they could enable staff to work flexibly and increase the numbers of staff when demand was high. The reception manager explained this had reduced the number of missed calls, and enhanced patient access. The practice submitted access data from 27 to 31 January 2025, which demonstrated they had offered 729 appointments, this consisted of 166 face to face, 268 telephone appointments, 5 home visits and 266 online requests. The telephone system enabled the practice manager to evaluate the daily uptake and type of appointments and respond to demands. In addition, they had recruited two GP’s and expended the clinical team. The practice was open from 8.00 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday, and patients had access to out of hours services in an evening and at weekends. Face to face, online. telephone appointments and home visits were available either as urgent or routine. The receptionists had triage documents to follow to ensure their made the appropriate appointment for patients. The practice operated an on-call doctor system to ensure timely patient care throughout the day. On the day of the assessment, staff demonstrated the next routine appointment was available within two weeks.

Although the national GP survey for 2024 does not request a response from patients who are specifically experiencing inequalities, the results for the patient’s experience of contacting the practice, whether reception staff were helpful and whether contact through the practices website and phone were easy, were all inline or above both the national and local targets. The practice had a newsletter displayed in reception and posted on their website which was prepared by the patient participation group.

The practice made attempts to ensure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, they had extended appointments available for patients who required more time to express their needs. People could access the practice to suit their needs, for example online, in person and by telephone. The practice had access for people with mobility needs.

The practice had involved community engagement such as, diabetes awareness sessions, community coffee mornings at a local church and mosque, which offered one to one session with a doctor, oxygen level and blood pressure checks, body mass index checks to improve health outcomes for patients.

The doctors were in contact with the palliative care team and district nurses to arrange visits. Where a patient was discussed at a complex multidisciplinary team meeting the doctors would attend. Most staff had completed mental capacity act training. At the time of the assessment the practice was not contracted with the local Integrated Care Board to support a residential or nursing care home. To further reduce barriers, the practice was implementing digital tools such as iPads in the reception area to assist patients with limited digital literacy.