- GP practice
Dr S Bassi & Associates Ltd
Assessment report published 30 July 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the local Healthwatch, showed people were satisfied with services. The National GP Patient Survey results from March 2024 were either in line with or above the national averages. People we spoke to were also mainly positive about the service. People said they were treated with dignity, respect and empathy and they trusted staff. They said that staff were good at listening and involving them in decisions and they had not experienced any discriminatory behaviour. People said access to appointments was satisfactory. However, one person told us that there was no female GP which made them feel uncomfortable during intimate examinations. Although they said they were offered a chaperone, they felt it was a significant issue.