Wentworth Medical Practice

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 the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our follow up inspection on 18 January 2023, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has been changed to good for this key question. We noted that the practice had increased its scores in many of the indicators in the survey, indicating an increase in patient satisfaction. The practice remained below the local GP average and national average scores for telephone access, however there was an improvement in score relating to access via the practice’s website. The practice sought feedback from patients using a range of surveys. It analysed the results of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) and provided examples of improvements that had been made as a result of feedback received. It conducted its own patient satisfaction survey, telephone AI survey and sought feedback from external stakeholders. The practice engaged with the PPG to work collaboratively to improve systems of communication.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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

As part of this inspection, we considered feedback from patients sent to us about the practice over the previous 12 months. We also asked the practice to display a poster for patients in the lead-up to this inspection and to ask them to contribute their views. We received negative feedback in relation to access to a face-to-face appointment, misplaced medical records, care provided, delays in referrals, issues with online forms and telephone access. We received positive feedback in relation to the range of services provided, the ease of making an appointment and care provided by a GP.

Patient feedback we received from the National GP Patient Survey indicated 88% of patients who responded felt that the health professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last GP appointment. This was higher than the local average GP score of 84% and higher than the national average score of 87%. The practice had increased its score in this question from 84% achieved in 2024. 78% of patients who responded found the reception and administrative team at the practice helpful. This was slightly below the local average GP score of 80% and the national average score of 83%. The practice had markedly increased its score in this question from 64% achieved in 2024. A total of 127 surveys were completed by patients out of 477 surveys sent out, which was a completion rate of 27%.

We saw evidence of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) data for the practice from January to June 2025. Feedback received was predominantly positive. The practice comprehensively analysed the feedback and actioned any negative feedback. For example, the practice discussed feedback relating to long waits for appointments at clinical meetings and instructed clinicians to inform reception staff if they were running more than 20 minutes late so that this information could be relayed to patients. The practice also conducted its own patient satisfaction survey and patient survey regarding telephone AI, and we saw evidence that the practice had analysed the results of these surveys and had used responses to devise actions to make improvements.

The practice told us that it considered the demographics of the practice population, offered reasonable adjustments where required and took people’s preferences into consideration during appointments and when providing information. The practice informed us that each GP at the practice looked after a cohort of patients. The practice encouraged patients to be involved in decisions relating to their care and decide on management plans collaboratively. The practice provided information to patients in formats to help patients understand their care, treatment and conditions as well as having access to interpreters, the provision of longer appointments where required and conducting home visits where needed.

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

We saw the practice working in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice signposted patients to community services where required, including social prescribers, dieticians and a local community centre. The practice provided services to several local care homes and conducted weekly ward rounds. The practice told us that once patients were registered with the service, it conducted holistic assessments, reviewing patients’ medical and emotional needs. The practice conducted home visits for patients where they were unable to attend the surgery and also referred patients to the rapid response service where appropriate. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, taking steps to understand the religious beliefs of patients and sharing information across services to ensure that the patient’s wishes were known and adhered to. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

The practice told us that patient empowerment was important and that it had worked with its Patient Participation Group and sought input to redevelop its website. The practice told us that it had responded to patient feedback and had installed a lift at the practice to assist patients in accessing the upper floor to align with patient needs.

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

The practice ensured the patient population had access to information that was beneficial to their health. The practice provided access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The practice had staff who spoke several different languages who were able to assist patients. The practice had a hearing loop system. The practice listened to patients and signposted them to the right services where necessary. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records. The practice website was available to as wide an audience as possible, and had accessible tools such as translation, altering text size and a dyslexia-friendly format. The practice told us that it provided support to patients where required with online access and where patients were unable to use online services, it provided assistance over the telephone or in person at the surgery.

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

Patient feedback we received from the National GP Patient Survey indicated 87% of patients who responded said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last appointment. This was above the local average GP score of 85% and on a par with the national average score of 87%. The practice had increased its score in this question from 84% achieved in 2024. 88% of patients who responded felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in discussions about their care and treatment during their last appointment. This was slightly below the local average GP score of 90% and the national average score of 91%. The practice’s score for 2024 was 90%.

The practice had identified ways for people to share feedback and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice had a Patient Participation Group (PPG) which engaged with the practice on a regular basis. The practice reviewed data from Friends and Family Test (FFT) feedback received. We saw FFT feedback received from January to June 2025 was predominantly positive. The practice had comprehensively analysed feedback provided and had put in place actions to address any negative feedback received. The practice also conducted its own patient satisfaction survey and had put in place actions to address negative feedback.

We spoke with members of the PPG who told us that the practice interacted positively with the group. They told us that the group had worked with the practice to improve communication between the practice and patients by supporting the redesign of the practice website, had provided input to the appointments system and new telephone AI system by testing the system and providing feedback and had been involved in the planning proposal for the premises development. They informed us that there were some ongoing issues with the telephone system and appointment booking. They felt that the practice was open and honest in its approach. The practice told us that it tried to recruit PPG members to represent the diversity of its patient population groups and sought feedback from the group at meetings.

We spoke with several of the care homes that the practice provided services to. Feedback we received was predominantly positive and the practice had good working relationships with the care homes. They told us that there was a named person at the practice they could raise concerns with and that the practice had acted on issues brought to their attention in the past and improvements had been made.

The practice had identified ways for people to share feedback and raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The practice had a complaints policy which was available for staff to refer to. Information was available for patients about how to make a complaint at the surgery and on the practice’s website. The practice had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. We saw evidence that the practice had analysed the significant events and complaints received over the previous 12 months and had identified where actions needed to be taken and where improvements were made. The practice told us that it worked hard to make sure that it was supportive throughout the significant events and complaints investigation process to ensure that staff felt comfortable in reporting any incidents. The practice shared its analysis of significant events and complaints with staff members to ensure that learning was embedded. Significant events and complaints were discussed at regular clinical and practice meetings and during the staff away days. Minutes from staff meetings were saved on to the shared system so that staff who were absent could familiarise themselves with discussions. The practice also sent staff bulletins cascading changes by email.

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

Patient feedback we received from the National GP Patient Survey indicated 62% of patients who responded described their overall experience of the practice as good. This was lower than the local average GP score of 73% and the national average score of 75%. However, we saw an improvement from the previous score of 57% in 2024. 26% of patients who responded found it easy to get through to the practice by phone. This was below the local average GP score of 55% and the national average score of 53% and slightly below the previous score of 30% in 2024. 42% of patients who responded found it easy to contact the practice using their website. This was below the local average GP score of 50% and the national average score of 51%. There was an improvement from the previous score of 26% in 2024. 25% of patients who responded found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS app. This was below the local average GP score of 46% and the national average score of 49%. This was the same score received in 2024. 58% of patients who responded described their experience of contacting the practice as good. This was below the local average GP score of 69% and the national average score of 70%. This was an improvement on the previous score of 55% in 2024.

The practice told us that it had analysed the results of the National GP Patient Survey, feedback received from the Friends and Family Test and its own patient satisfaction survey. It had also liaised with the PPG regarding the issues of accessibility and patient communication. The practice had implemented an AI telephone system and was conducting additional work to tweak the system to make improvements. The practice reviewed call audit data and had made changes to improve on the system and continued to review the system to ensure it was working as needed.

The practice’s opening hours were 8am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday at Wentworth Medical Practice and 8am to 6:30pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday and 8am to 1pm on Wednesday at Audley Medical Practice branch surgery. The practice website informed patients that Barnet Federated GPs offered evening and weekend appointments for all Barnet residents at practice hubs (the surgery was a hub) between 6:30pm and 9pm on weekdays and from 8am to 8pm on weekends and bank holidays. Urgent appointments could be made by using the online appointment request form, by telephoning the practice or attending in person. Routine appointments could be made using the online appointment request form, by telephoning or attending the practice or using the NHS App. Reception staff were able to guide patients through the process of completing the online appointment request form and using online services where required. The practice told us that appointments offered were meeting the demands of the patient population.

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

Feedback provided by people using the service through the Friends and Family Test and the service’s own patient satisfaction survey was predominantly positive. Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes. Patients in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the surgery, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and travellers. The practice told us that it provided services to patients who were asylum seekers and were situated in a local hotel and used interpreters to ensure that patients’ physical and mental care needs were identified and treated. The practice conducted a holistic assessment of patients and identified where vaccinations, childhood immunisations and cervical screening were required. The practice had a handbook for additional support for asylum seekers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet. People who required annual checks were monitored and contacted by the practice to ensure they attended for the required appointments.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including end of life care.

The practice worked collaboratively with other healthcare providers to support patients with end-of-life care. The practice discussed patients receiving end-of-life care at clinical meetings and liaised with the relevant teams, for example, the local geriatrician, cancer care team, care home teams, and response nurses, to ensure a comprehensive management plan was in place. Advanced care planning discussions were held about long-term care with patients and their relatives where appropriate. This information was shared with other services when necessary.