- GP practice
Beaumont Park Surgery
Assessment report published 2 March 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 21 January to 27 January 2026. Beaumont Park Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 6,400 under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 21.6% of patients are aged 65 years or over, compared with the England average of 18%. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 10th decile (10 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
This was a responsive assessment carried out as a follow-up to the previous assessment conducted in November 2024 when the practice was rated as requires improvement overall and requires improvement for the key questions of safe, effective and well led. At that time, breaches of safe care and treatment and good governance were identified.
The purpose of this follow-up assessment was to evaluate the progress made in addressing the identified concerns and to determine whether the necessary improvements had been implemented to ensure compliance.
The service had a positive learning culture, and staff felt able to raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents and clinical risk, with processes in place for safety alerts and high‑risk medicines. Facilities were clean and appropriate for people’s needs, and staffing levels were suitable. Medicines were mainly managed safely, although some areas required further review and clearer documentation. Some improvements were still required, particularly around outstanding safety actions and documented clinical competency assessments.
People were involved in assessments of their needs, and staff considered communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with other agencies involved in people’s care to support good outcomes and smooth transitions between services. Staff ensured people understood their care and treatment to enable informed consent. Where people lacked capacity, staff involved those important to them and made decisions in their best interests.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. However, some governance processes required strengthening, including documenting clinical competency assessments and ensuring timely follow‑up of identified safety actions. Despite this, there remained a culture of continuous improvement, with staff given time and resources to support ongoing development relevant to their roles.
Since the last assessment, the practice had made improvements and is no longer in breach of safe care and treatment and good governance.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment.
According to the 2025 National GP Patient Survey, 82% of patients reported a good overall experience with the practice, above the national average of 75%. Additionally, 85% said the healthcare professionals they saw or spoke with treated them with care and concern, which was comparable to the national average of 86%.
Between April and December 2025, 1,657 patients responded to the Friends Family Test. Feedback was positive, with an average of over 96.8% of respondents rating the service as good or very good.
Staff from the aligned care home provided positive feedback regarding the standard of care delivered by Beaumont Park Surgery to their residents, specifically noting that the care received from the practice was good.
The practice did not have an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) at the time of the assessment. Efforts had been made to re‑establish patient engagement, including events held on 26 June and 2 July 2025, but no patients attended.