Bowling Highfield Medical Practice

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 our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (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 reviewed the results from the National GP Patient Survey 2025, 92 surveys were completed out of 470 sent out. We saw that 78% of people said the professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last appointment. The local and national average is 87%. Additionally, 78% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw was good at listening to them during their last appointment, the national average is 87%.

Staff members we spoke with told us that the practice treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, with patients’ privacy and dignity being respected.

Staff also told us that they understood the demographic of patients within the practice, accommodated people from different cultures and backgrounds and worked to reduce barriers to care, by providing interpreters and longer appointments or adjustments for mobility impairments.

The practice held a list of carers and encouraged any people who held caring responsibilities to keep the practice informed so they could offer additional support

The practice treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

In the latest National GP Patient Survey 2025, the practice scored 89% in the question, ‘were people involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment’. The national average for this is 91%.

The practice completed learning disability reviews and arranged these to meet individuals’ needs for example, longer appointments or arranging homes visits if this was required.

The practice had access to an interpreter service and could book British Sign Language interpreters if required. The practice noted patients’ personal needs and preferences on file to ensure communication needs were met, this enabled patients to be fully involved in their care. The main site did not have a hearing loop, but this was something management advised us they were assessing whether there was a need within the population. The branch did have a hearing loop, but staff were unaware how to use it. Management assured us they would provide training for staff.

The practice promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Longer appointments for patients who required additional support to allow them to participate in their care.

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services. The practice identified they had 196 patients on the carers list this was approximately 1.3% of the patient population.

People’s needs, views and wishes were listened to and understood. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff members we spoke to were aware of what action to take in the event of a medical emergency, where to find emergency equipment and were aware of how they could escalate concerns and raise an alarm.

The practice had a standard operating procedure for patient accessing general practice services. Staff sign posted patients to external services when applicable. Staff were trained to be aware of ‘red flag’ presenting conditions such as shortness of breath and would take appropriate action. Staff were trained in sepsis management, and a GP was always on site if they had any further concerns. Patients could access an emergency appointment on the day, and there was usually between a 2-5 day wait for non-urgent appointments, depending on the type of appointment needed.

Staff we spoke with knew how to respond when a patient needed immediate or urgent attention. There were systems in place to support this, including the use of panic alarms, and availability of emergency equipment. We saw in staff records that they had received training in basic life support and sepsis awareness.

The practice actively cared for patients in residential care homes and made weekly visits and frequent contacts with patients and their carers. Palliative care patients were supported, and we saw evidence of close partnership working with other stakeholders to ensure their ongoing needs were being met.

Most staff reported feeling valued by leaders. Management held a recent feedback meeting to discuss successes and areas for improvement. Leaders operated an open-door policy, and staff felt supported in their development.

Staff were encouraged to pursue professional development, including attending external training. They received protected time for learning and regular appraisals with opportunities to set future objectives.

Policies were in place to support staff welfare, including bullying and harassment, and a Freedom to Speak Up policy. A Freedom to Speak Up Guardian was available both internally and via the Primary Care Network (PCN).

The practice promoted team cohesion through quarterly team-building days and supported wellbeing through dedicated sessions and access to additional resources.