Archived: Dr B. Bekas

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

At the previous assessment, we rated responsive as requires improvement. Following this assessment, the rating remains the same.

Staff were not trained, supported or confident in meeting people’s needs. Staff reported feeling frustrated by leaders and who did not listen to them. There were no established or effective systems to monitor or meet patient demand or respond to changes placing people at risk of harm.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patient feedback through the GP patient survey 2025 showed that 84.8% of respondents to the survey stated that during their last appointment, the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them, compared to the local and national average of 86.9%.

Staff were unable to tell us how they regularly involved patients in making shared decisions about their care and treatment plans.

We found during the clinical review of people's records that improvements were required to ensure people were aware of their health conditions and the appropriate care and treatment was provided to assist them in managing their health conditions.

The practice had posters on display in the waiting area and reception providing information on different groups and helplines for people to access support.

We were unable to gain assurances that staff and leaders worked within the primary care network (PCN) and with other agencies to ensure that people’s care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their needs and were responsive. For example, the practice was supported by a social prescriber to provide support to people, however feedback from staff showed a lack of understanding of what the social prescriber was focusing on, and whether any referrals had been made.

There was no evidence that multi-disciplinary meetings were being held with community services to discuss and manage the needs of people with complex medical issues. Safeguarding meetings were not held at the practice, and there was no evidence of discussions with health visitors or other agencies when safeguarding concerns had been highlighted.

The practice had updated their website since the previous assessment. The website included useful information on health awareness and promotion. Information and resources were available for people to support them to understand how to access services. For example, there was information for people who needed translation services or who may be digitally excluded. A total triage system was being planned to provide people with the option to contact a clinician without having to book an appointment via the telephone.

There were systems in place to support people who faced communication barriers to access treatment, however staff were not aware of how to operate the hearing loop to help people who had hearing difficulties. Records were held in line with guidance and requirements.

We found the practice had some processes which complied with the Accessible Information Standard, (AIS). For example, the practice was aware of their patient demographic and were able to support them to access health services, but they were unaware of the total scope of the AIS and their legal requirements to comply with it.

Although the practice had a system for complaints, we found that where people had sent the practice a written complaint, they did not always receive a written reply, which was not in line with the practice policy.

The practice told us they collated feedback via the Friends and Family test to make improvements to the service, although they were unable to provide any analysis of the data or any changes made as a result of the feedback.

The practice had sent patient questionnaires to patients on a number of occasions, asking them to score statements. The statements were the same for each questionnaire, but we saw no analysis of trends, or any actions taken as a result of the responses received.

The practice had a complaints policy in place. However, we found the systems to monitor complaints and use patient comments to improve the quality of care was not embedded to ensure improvements were demonstrated. There was no evidence to demonstrate that complaints were regularly reviewed and discussed in practice meetings to share learning.
 

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We saw evidence that face-to-face appointments were only offered during the mornings by the GP and that nurse appointments were available each week on a Monday and 2 Wednesdays per month. No PCN staff delivered clinics at the practice.

The practice offered appointments by telephone and in person by visiting the practice. At the time of assessment, there was no facility to book appointments online.

The National GP Patient Survey results 2025 indicated that 79.1% of respondents to the survey responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice compared to the national average of 69.6%.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The lack of clinical staff at the practice meant that people were not always able to access the care and treatment at the time they needed it.

Reception staff had not been trained and did not have access to guidance or support to assist then to effectively assess patients’ clinical needs and prioritise/signpost them appropriately.

Staff told us patients were given appointments on a first come first served rule and they did not prioritise. Patients were not told a timescale for receiving a response to their enquiries.

There were no established and effective processes in place to ensure trained staff followed up and reviewed clinical referrals and results in a timely manner.

Leaders understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making and had access to policies to support them. However, there was no evidence that the practice held multidisciplinary meetings with other agencies to share and discuss information relating to care and treatment, for example, those on the palliative care register.

We found that the process to maintain and update registers held for those people who were vulnerable who were on the palliative care register or at the end of their life was not robust and we were not assured that all appropriate patients were on the relevant register.

There were systems in place to ensure staff kept up to date in training relating to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found that most staff had completed the required training.