Bethnal Green Health 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 meant people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

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.

Staff placed people at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond torelevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. Results from the National GP Survey 2025 showed 98% of participants felt they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment. The local average was 88% and 91% national average.

Leaders explained they now met regularly with multi-agency staff to discuss and improve outcomes for people with complex needs. Patients could book appointments online, through the digital hub or by telephone. Longer appointments were offered to those with more complex needs. People in vulnerable circumstances were able to register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as homeless people and Travellers. The practice provided Enhanced Health in Care Homes (EHCH) services to a local residential care home. This included a weekly ward round by the named GP, attending monthly multi-disciplinary team meetings, and carrying out new resident assessments within 7 days of admission. Overall, the care home staff reported a high level of satisfaction with the quality of care provided by the practice.

The practice mostly supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

Data from the National GP Patient Survey 2025 showed that only 32% found it easy to contact this GP practice using their website. This result was lower than the local (47%) and national results (51%). Staff told us that information on the practice website was updated on a regular basis. Feedback from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey showed that 96% of patients felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last appointment.

The practice complied with the Accessible Information Standard and staff had completed training. Staff had access to the data protection and accessible information policies online. There were arrangements in place for people who needed translation services.

Staff made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Reception staff were aware of the needs of the local community. Staff could refer people with social needs, such as those experiencing social isolation or housing difficulties, to a social prescriber. Reception staff used digital flags within the care records system to highlight any specific individual needs, such as the requirement for longer appointments or for a translator to be present.

We found people had multiple ways to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the national patient survey. When a patient submitted an online consultation, they could opt in to taking a short survey.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. The complaints policy was available on the practice website and included information for patients about how to contact the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Leaders told us they had listened to patient feedback about the complaints process and had made improvements to their complaints policy. Learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes that improved care for others. The full team were involved in reviewing outcomes to maximise learning and support change.

National patient survey feedback showed staff ensured patients could mostly access the care, support, and treatment they needed in a timely way. For example, 53% stated their experience of contacting the practice was good overall and 35% stated it was easy to contact the practice on the phone, which were both below the national and local averages. Only 32% stated contact through their website was either fairly or very easy.

Patients were able to book appointments in advance, and the service promoted the use of the NHS App. However, only 28%found it easy to contact their GP practice using the NHS App. This was lower than the local (45%)and national result (49%). The practice manager explained they were making improvements to the website, which now enabled patients to access appointments online.

The practice had implemented a new GP-led total triage model delivered through an innovative clinical hub. The practice had also created a GP hub supervisor who was co-located in a multidisciplinary team hub setting, supported by a clinical pharmacist, GP Registrars, GP assistants and care navigators who triaged and signposted all requests for support at the first point of contact. Staff were supported by a clinical and non-clinical triage guide. The provider explained this had enhanced patient access and maintained service quality. Prior to the introduction of the total triage service, the practice had carried out a patient survey to identify any themes which would help drive improvements.

Leaders shared the practice’s analysis of the access results from the July 2025 GP Patient Survey results and had an action plan which was regularly reviewed. In response to patient survey results the practice had made a number of improvements. For example, auditing clinical triage which resulted in moving to an all-day triage model to replace the previous system, where triage had been concentrated in the morning. The practice had also redesigned the patient pathway from first contact through to clinical outcome to improve patient’s experience of navigating the system. The practice had changed consultations to 15 minutes for face-to-face appointments and recruited an additional GP Partner and a prescriber pharmacist to the clinical team. In addition, the practice had a plan to train receptionists to act as care navigators to direct patients to the most appropriate service or clinician for their needs. Leaders told us they planned to audit the current website usability to ensure the online consultation form was easy to use and available in key community languages. The practice also planned to run a 6-month NHS App promotion campaign (between April – September 2026) in partnership with Tower Hamlets PCNs, and work with Tower Hamlets Council to organise community digital inclusion events.

The 2025 National GP Patient Survey does not request a response from patients who are specifically experiencing health inequalities. The results for the patients’ experience of contacting the practice, whether reception staff were helpful, and contacting by phone, were all below both the national and local averages. Only 32% stated contact through their website was either fairly or very easy.

Staff and leaders considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. Patients had access to a social prescriber, health and wellbeing adviser, and physiotherapist. The service had audited their triage process and noticed that some women were coming back multiple times to discuss health issues. The practice set up health clinics to address women’s health needs by introducing three 30-minute appointment slots per week.

The practice had taken part in patient engagement focus groups between April and May 2025 including a Learning Disability focus group hosted at the practice, Stroke Patient focus group and a Young People’s focus group. The practice was also involved in the INT (Integrated Neighbourhood Teams) Community Forum held in December 2024 when 52 people attended. The forum focused on delivering coordinated health and social care to improve health and reduce inequalities through personalised, local care.In addition, the practice had taken part in PCN quality improvement projects targeting health inequalities, including partnerships with community groups, for example, Coffee Afrique (supporting the Somalian community), DeafPlus (health related talks and workshops for deaf and hard of hearing people), and the North East London Cancer Alliance. The practice had also taken part in a Somali Senior Citizens outreach in January 2026.

The practice had accessible features for patients with disabilities. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers.

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. We found people had multiple ways to provide feedback. This included through NHS websites, the complaints process, the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the national patient survey. When a patient submitted an online consultation, they could opt in to taking a short survey.

Our records review showed most people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, systems for advance care planning decisions, including ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR), were in place but were applied inconsistently. Decisions were not always clearly documented or reviewed in a timely way. Staff kept a palliative care register and told us patients were reviewed according to their needs and discussed during practice staff meetings. The service had processes in place to review if care and preferences had been met in line with patient wishes.

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.