Honeypot Medical Centre

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 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 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. Patients we spoke with said they were involved in decisions about their care.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to. For example, 86% of patients said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern during their last general practice appointment, which was in line with the national average of 86%. Also, 86% of patients responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice which above the national average of 75%.
 

The service had an understanding of 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 worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population which included a residential and nursing home. The Practice had a named GP lead providing relational continuity for residents, care home staff, and families. This included dedicated weekly ward round sessions. Care home staff developed familiarity with the named GP, paramedic and practice clinical pharmacist, enabling more effective communication and earlier identification of deterioration in patients.

The practice used a dedicated continuity flag in their system to identify patients for whom continuity of care was a clinical priority. A flagged patient alerted staff to check whether a consistent care relationship was in place and whether any outstanding needs required handover to a named team.

The practice identified the top 2% of patients who would benefit most from enhanced continuity of care and had 3 team members to be part of the named team for that patient. This included patients with long-term conditions, Frailty, Frequent hospital admissions, Complex care needs and Significant social or safeguarding needs. Data we saw of patients on the continuity of care register which analysed Emergency Department Attendances shows a theme of less patients attending AE after the named care team was put in place.
 

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. During our on-site visit, we saw that information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard.

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. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. These were discussed at practice meetings on a weekly basis.

Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed 93% of patients were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. This was above the national average 91%.

Patients we spoke with from the Patient Participation Group (PPG) told us that the practice improved their telephone system as a result of feedback from them. The practice introduced a new telephone system which showed significant improvements in the number of calls answered compared to the old system in place. Data we saw, showed a higher percentage of calls answered within 1 minute, 3 minutes and 10 minutes in each month in 2025 in comparison to 2024.

Following every appointment, the practice sends patients an SMS invitation to complete the Friends and Family Test. This provides continuous real‑time feedback. In February 2026, we saw evidence that the practice received over 613 responses in February 2026. The results showed that 95% of patients rated their experience as “Very Good” or “Good” and 4% provided negative/neutral responses.

One of the partners at the practice is the clinical director of the Harrow East PCN. The PCN carried out a patient access survey followed by an engagement event which was attended by 200 patients. For the practice, 12,769 invitations were sent to its patient population and there was a 7.3% response rate which was higher in comparison with the previous year’s response rate.
 

The service was good at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. In the 2025 National GP Patient Survey, 89% of patients responded positively to the overall experience of contacting their GP practice which was above the 70% National average. 76% of patients found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone which was above the 53% national average. The Practice achieved through staff training on call handling, as well as using cloud telephony data to provide staffing capacity to match call demand. The practice also introduced a new telephone system which showed significant improvements in the number of calls answered compared to the old system in place. Data we saw, showed a higher percentage of calls answered within 1 minute, 3 minutes and 10 minutes throughout the year in comparison to the year before. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone. All patients we spoke with found it easy to book an appointment with the practice.

The practice carried out an Access Planning and Appointment Capacity Quality Improvement project which aimed at developing an evidence-based methodology for planning and monitoring appointment access. As a result of this, the access planning system produced a set of operational improvements that were measurable and sustained. During our on-site visit, we saw a daily access email which was sent to management staff. This was to ensure the practice was meeting targets set by the local borough as well as targets set by themselves. This daily access email was used as evidence if their system was working or not. The system reduced the workload on operational management and reduced the risk of errors. As a result of the Quality Improvement report, the practice were able to consistently offer routine GP appointments within 5 working days and same day appointments for all patients with urgent needs on the same day.

Data comparison between the 2025 and 2024 National GP patient Survey show that in 2025, 83% of patients felt they waited the right amount of time for their last general appointment. This was in comparison with 67% in 2024. One of the main differences between these two years was that the practice had reduced the acceptable wait to see a GP from 2 weeks to 1 week as a result of the Access Planning and Appointment Capacity Quality Improvement project.
 

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. An example being that the practice identified the top 2% of patients who would benefit most from enhanced continuity of care and identified 3 team members to be part of the named team. The precise composition of each named team was determined by the clinical needs of the individual patient. For example, a patient with severe frailty, polypharmacy and social isolation may have had a named GP or dedicated frailty GP, a pharmacist and a social prescribing link worker. A patient with complex diabetes and renal disease may have had a named GP, a clinical pharmacist, and a practice nurse with specialist chronic disease skills.

The practice sought to understand some of their populations such as the Romanian population, by meeting with local Romanian councillor. This led to the practice building authentic relationships with its Romanian patient population. They also worked together with local Romanian charities and a variety of different partners to better understand the population. The practice created a parent education session to discuss a variety of child health and clinical topics as well as on how to navigate health and community services. Parents from different ethnic backgrounds attended this and were involved in discussions. The practice recruited a Romanian speaking care coordinator which helped build the relationship between the community and the practice. One of the result of these sessions, was that the practice established a parents' WhatsApp group hosted by a care coordinator. Also as a result of this work, a number of previously declined families agreed to immunisation.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.