Dr S Bassi & Associates Ltd

Date of Assessment: 9 July 2026 to 13 July 2026. Dr S Bassi Associates Ltd is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 6,100 patients under a General Medical Services (GMS) contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the patient demographic is 55% White, 19% Asian, 12% Black, 6% Mixed and 8% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the fourth decile (4 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The service was last assessed in May 2025, and it was rated overall requires improvement. The practice was found to be in breach of regulations with 2 warning notices served for regulation 12 safe care and treatment and regulation 17 good governance. This comprehensive assessment was undertaken to follow up on the concerns identified at the last assessment and provide an up-to-date rating for the overall service provided.

Since the assessment in May 2025, the service has improved its systems and processes to provide safe care and treatment. We found there was a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

Since the assessment in May 2025, the service has improved its systems and processes to deliver effective care and treatment. We found people were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. 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.

Since the assessment in May 2025, the service has improved its leadership and governance. We found leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

As a result of the improvements the service is no longer in breach of regulation 12 safe care and treatment regulation 17 good governance.

Date of Assessment: 28/05/2025 to 29/05/2025. Hanwell Health Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to 6,300 patients under a GMS contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnicity of the practice population is 55.4% White, 18.9% Asian, 11.6% Black, 7.6% Other and 6.4% Mixed. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 5th decile (5 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The service had a system to investigate incidents although learning was not shared across all staff groups. People were not protected and kept safe because risks were not mitigated in relation to urgent referrals, safeguarding and infection prevention and control. The service did not have processes to evidence effective staff recruitment, induction and training, and staff had not received up-to-date appraisals to support the delivery of high quality care. People were not always prescribed medicines safely.

People’s medicine reviews were not always completed in a timely way. Care and treatment was not always delivered in accordance with evidence based guidance. The arrangements to monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it were not well developed. Cervical cancer screening and childhood immunisation uptake were below national targets. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing. However, people with carer responsibilities required more support.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. However, the service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas as the systems and processes to seek and act on feedback were not well developed. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities. However, vulnerable people were not managed well. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

There was no evidence of a shared vision and strategy that all staff contributed to. Leaders were visible and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Systems and processes to ensure good governance were ineffective. Learning and improvement was not well developed. Staff felt supported and able to speak up.

We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. We have issued the provider with warning notices in response to the concerns found at this assessment.