Archived: Dr B. Bekas

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At the previous assessment, we did not assess caring.

At this assessment we saw that the practice told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood and applied legislation relating to consent.

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.

This service scored 62 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

We observed that people’s privacy and dignity was respected by reception staff.

National GP Patient Survey data reflected that people felt listened to and were treated with kindness.

Feedback from people who used the service was positive for being treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. For example, 88% of those who responded to the National GP patient survey 2025 said the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern during their appointment, compared to the local and national average of 85.6%.

The practice treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. People’s personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Communication needs were met to enable people to be fully involved in their care. Interpretation services were available if required.

The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The practice did not have registers for the different types of patients who may have required assistance in exercising independence, choice and control, for example, carers, veterans, people with a learning disability and autistic people.

The percentage of respondents to the GP patient survey who stated that during their last appointment they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment was 92.1% compared with local and national averages of 91.2%

Staff told us they did not feel supported or confident to respond to patient’s immediate needs as a clinician was not always contactable. We found no established and effective systems and processes in place to ensure patient’s clinical needs were responded to in a timely and consistent manner.

The service did not care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff reported feeling tired, overwhelmed and unsupported by the practice management team and the partners. Staff were not given opportunities to provide feedback, or support to raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences.

Staff members were visibly upset when speaking about their experiences at work. Some staff members told us the lead GP never acknowledged their achievements, and they did not feel valued or listened to by the provider.

At the time of the assessment, we saw that staff had submitted grievance complaints against leaders which had not been addressed or handled in line with legislation or Human Resources (HR) procedures. In addition, one member of staff had made a disclosure in the public interest (a whistleblowing concern).