Dr I K Babar & Partners

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 has changed.

The service was in breach of legal Regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.

This service scored 43 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The National GP Patient Survey results were below the average for questions linked to patient centredness. For example, 43% of respondents (compared to 83% nationally and 84% locally) found the reception and administrative team helpful and 69% (compared to 87% nationally and locally) said the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were not always supported to understand their condition and were not always involved in planning for their care needs.

There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Results of the National GP Patient Survey indicated that 16% of patients got to see or speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they would like to, compared to 40% nationally and locally.

The practice had tailored some of its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes.

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

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. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

There was little evidence of administrative and clinical staff being trained in General Data Protection Regulation. A significant event hadoccurred where patient information had been sent to an incorrect external organisation and a data breach had not been considered by the provider.

Staff had not received adequate training in this area which led to the data breach not being identified. There was no evidence that this event had been discussed at staff meetings.

The service had systems in place for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, they did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.
We saw complaints were not managed in line with the practice Policy and the procedure was unclear.

The procedure referred to a ‘complaint’s lead’ and ‘complaint’s manager’. The complaint’s manager was named in the leaflet that was available for patients, but the complaints lead was not named.
Learning from complaints was not evident and staff were not able to identify changes made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints.

The provider advised us that the last complaint they received in written format was in October 2024. However, CQC received information that 2 written complaints had been sent to the practice over the previous 12 months, one in November 2025 and a second one in August. The provider had no record of these complaints.

The provider advised us that they had only received one verbal complaint in 2025, but as they did not record verbal complaints, they were unable to provide us with any details. The provider policy states that unless a verbal complaint can be resolved at the point of the complaint being raised then the complaint should be placed on the complaint log. A complaint log was requested but was not provided.
 

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

The service received scores below national and local averages in the National GP Patient Survey. The percentage of respondents who were positive about their experience of contacting the practice was 34% which compared to 70% nationally and 72% locally. A total of 28% that responded to the survey felt they waited about the right amount of time for their last appointment which compared to 67% nationally and 68% locally.

The percentage of respondents who responded positively to how easy it was to contact their GP practice on the phone was 16% this compared to 53% nationally and 57% locally. 32% of patients found it easy to contact the practice using the NHS App which compared to 49% nationally and 52% locally.

We asked the practice manager if they had an action plan to improve these results, which had been published in July 2025. They told us they planned to discuss them in January 2026.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

There were processes in place to ensure people could register with the practice. Information and evidence received showed inconsistent timeframes (3 to 6 weeks) for new patients being able to access a new patient appointment; however, should they need to see a clinician, they were able to access an appointment.

The results of the National GP Patient Survey showed that 73% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, compared to 90% nationally and locally.45% described their overall experience of the practice as good, compared to 75% nationally and 77% locally.

Staff did not always understand the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and did not always make adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

People were not always 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.

People were not supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We looked at a selection of patient records which showed us that patients on the gold standard framework and marked on the clinical system as being Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) had not been reviewed for a long period of time.