BPAS - Birmingham South

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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating changed to good. This meant patient’s needs were met.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patient’s needs.

A dedicated appointment slot was reserved each week for patients undergoing termination due to a foetal abnormality. This was scheduled early in the day, prior to other procedures, in recognition of the differing emotional needs associated with these cases. The timing enabled staff to provide additional support, allowing for sensitive discussions with patients and their partners in a calm and quiet environment before the procedural list commenced. Where possible, the service also offered hand and footprints.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible and timely. It was delivered in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements. The service was open 8am until 4pm Monday to Friday, extended opening hours were offered where required. There was an emergency support line available 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Patients’ care and treatment plans were clearly informed through a process of shared decision-making with staff. Patients were offered a range of treatment options and provided with the necessary information to make choices that were right for them. The website had a lot of information for patients to read to help them make informed decisions.

Staff ensured that information was communicated in a clear and supportive way, enabling patients to fully understand their options and actively participate in decisions about their care. The service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. All patients were asked about any preferences ahead of attending the clinic. Patients were able to ask to early appointment times, this helped if they felt anxious and wanted to be seen early in the day or had childcare needs.

The service held internal strategy meetings which took place where there were situations that deviated from normal practice or required additional planning to facilitate treatment. These meetings included regional safeguarding, quality matron, treatment unit manager, regional clinical director and any other teams required.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment, supported by flexible and well-coordinated services. Staff communicated effectively with other services, where consent had been obtained, to ensure seamless continuity of care.

The service also worked collaboratively with other locations within the geographical area. This enabled patients to access alternative appointments when availability was limited or where cancellations were required, ensuring timely care and minimising disruption to treatment.

The service had quarterly meetings with the commissioners, they discussed provision of services, new services and the reproductive and sexual health outcomes for patients.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs. The service website had a function where all information could be translated into many different languages. Staff regularly used telephone interpreters, and this was identified at the initial booking process. The service provided textphone services for their booking and helplines for deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech-impaired users. There was also a tool to convert the webpages to a text only version to improve accessibility.

The service provided a patient guidance booklet which was comprehensive and outlined key advice, before treatment, treatment and recovery information.

Patients and their families were given information on the collection or disposal of remains, in line with guidance. They were informed they had up to 12 weeks to make a decision. We saw evidence that remains were collected twice weekly, in accordance with relevant regulations and local policy, ensuring timely and respectful management.

The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways. Information about the complaint’s procedure was available in waiting areas and on the service’s website.

Complaints data was reviewed monthly as part of the dashboard and presented to the senior leaders. The service received 32 complaints from July 2025 to March 2026. Action plans were created when required and apologies given where needed.

The patient engagement team, tried to obtain verbal feedback and complaints from patients where communication was a barrier. For example, if a complainant’s first language was not English an interpreter could be sourced to provide both verbal and written assistance.

The service actively sought feedback from patients and those close to them. Results for January 2026 were positive with responses and comments highlighting that staff were “caring and supportive” and that patients had “a really positive experience.”

Patients provided feedback on areas where improvements could be made through the ‘You said, we did’ suggestions. For example, patients highlighted the need for a wider range of recovery food options to meet different dietary requirements. In response, the service introduced gluten-free snacks, diabetic-friendly options such as low-sugar cookies, and alternatives including oat milk.

Patients could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

The service took steps to reduce barriers to accessing care for patients experiencing financial difficulties. Where patients were unable to attend due to financial constraints, the service could provide funding to support travel expenses. Requests were made by the assessing nurse through an established funding process.

In some cases, accommodation costs could also be covered where clinically or practically necessary. Additionally, where a patient required an escort following a general anaesthetic, funding was made available to support this. This approach demonstrated the service’s commitment to ensuring equitable access to care and supporting patients’ individual needs.

All patients over 17 weeks and six days gestation had a surgical abortion under general anaesthetic. However, this choice was offered to all patients regardless of gestation period if this was their preferred option. Patients who were unable either physically or emotionally to undergo a termination of pregnancy under local anaesthetic or under conscious sedation could request a surgical abortion under general anaesthetic. This was 1 of only 5 services nationally offering this treatment option. Staff expressed great pride in the transition to offering procedures under general anaesthetic, as patients had previously been required to travel to London to access this service.

A dedicated appointment slot was reserved each week for patients undergoing termination due to a foetal abnormality. This was scheduled early in the day, prior to other procedures, in recognition of the differing emotional needs associated with these cases. The timing enabled staff to provide additional support, allowing for sensitive discussions with patients and their partners in a calm and quiet environment before the procedural list commenced. Where possible, the service also offered hand and footprints.

Patients with restricted mobility could access the service using a wheelchair ramp at the front of the building. Treatments could be carried out on the ground floor with no need to use stairs, but there was lift access to the second floor. The service also had an accessible toilet on the ground floor.

Data showed between March 2025 and February 2026 the service had treated 1966 patients. Of these patients 65% (1273 patients) had their treatment within 21 days of their initial contact with the clinic. On average, it took 5.9 days from contact to consultation, 13.9 days from consultation to treatment and 19.9 days from initial contact to treatment. This was slightly higher than other locations however, the service was recruiting an additional surgeon and was offering general anaesthetic unlike some other locations.

The service provided both face-to-face appointments and telephone consultations. Staff arranged follow-up calls for patients identified as vulnerable or where safeguarding concerns had been raised. Details of these cases were recorded on the clinic safeguarding log, and clients were followed up within three weeks to monitor their wellbeing and to ensure that treatment had been effective.

The service worked to ensure patients did not have their appointments cancelled last minute. Where this had happened due to adverse weather conditions the service had an action plan and patients were individually risk assessed and cancellations kept to a minimum.

The service monitored patient led cancellations. They recognised this was patient choice but followed up patients where concerns were raised in the pre-operative assessment, such as safeguarding concerns or children and young patients. All patients were telephoned a few days before their procedure to ensure they had all the information they needed ahead of their surgery and to try and reduce cancellations.

Mangers monitored waiting lists and adjusted where possible to reduce the time patients waited for appointments. The service had higher than normal waiting lists at the time of our inspection due to the cancellation of 3 surgical lists. This was following an unavoidable service disruption, managers had plans for recovery in place.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Patient’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights. The service offered appointment to meet patients’ needs, for example they offered extended hours appointments for patients who worked or had childcare commitments. The service could offer initial appointments to be held at other locations if these were easier to access until the actual day of treatment.

There was a complex care pathway for patients with additional needs. The service worked closely with GP practices to reduce delays in accessing treatment. Rather than waiting for information to be sent from GP surgeries, staff proactively contacted patients, with their consent, to gather the necessary information so that it was available from the first point of contact.

The service participated in an evaluation reviewing venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessments and the uptake of preventive low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). The findings demonstrated variation in LMWH uptake according to abortion method and highlighted practical barriers to access, particularly the need for patients to travel to clinics to collect medication. These insights directly informed service improvement actions, including expanding clinic access to LMWH, exploring postal provision of thromboprophylaxis, and strengthening documentation of reasons for declining treatment.

There was an equality diversity and inclusion group who had created a policy regarding patients who were transitioning from female to male. The service ensured its terminology was neutral where possible and not ruled by gender.

Patients were supported to make informed decisions about their choice of termination, with non-judgemental advice and information provided in line with current clinical evidence.

Patients were helped to make informed decisions about their care and future planning, including contraception and relationships. Staff discussed contraceptive options in line with the UK Medical Eligibility Criteria (UKMEC). Remote doctors were available to prescribe contraceptive medication, and clinics held stock that could be dispensed directly to patients. In addition, patients were offered the option of having an intrauterine device (a contraceptive device inserted into the womb) fitted at the time of a surgical procedure, where appropriate and in line with their preferences.