Dr I K Babar & Partners

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture

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 29 (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 have a shared vision, strategy and culture based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Formal meetings of the non-clinical team had only been put in place in September 2025. We saw no evidence that significant events were discussed by anyone, clinical or non-clinical. There was no evidence that learning had been shared and that actions had been taken to keep people safe.

The service did not have inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support, or who embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders were not knowledgeable about issues and priorities for the quality of services.GP partners and senior leaders were unaware of the issues we found during this assessment. There was a lack of evidence and information available to us when we carried out the site visit, and the practice was unaware of where the information we requested was located.

We were told that not all leaders in the practice were approachable and did not always respond to concerns raised. We were told by staff that if they were to raise concerns that these would not always be listened to or acted upon.

We saw some elements of the leadership team working with other practices in the primary care network, but we also saw occasions where this did not happen. Some staff advised they volunteered to undertake extra activities to help with sharing the workload of community and primary care network meetings but were advised the help was not needed.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

The practice had established Freedom to Speak Up arrangements in place however staff told us that they did not think the leaders would take actions if they were to speak up. The provider did hold practice meetings, but these were not well established and were not planned and staff had limited opportunities to share views.

The service did not value diversity in their workforce. They did not work towards an inclusive and fair culture to improve equality and equity for people who work for them.

The recruitment lead for the provider was the Practice Manager. However we found that recruitment for positions and onboarding checks were being carried out by the IT lead, and there were significant gaps and lack of human resources records and none of which complied with legal frameworks.

Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were not in place. Senior leaders had not always made reasonable adjustments to ensure all staff were valued.

Staff did not receive regular appraisals and the provider did not plan regular meetings for staff to attend. The provider did not promote staff wellbeing and no evidence was provided to show what the provider would do to support staff.

The practice did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider did not have established governance processes that were appropriate for their service. Although policies and procedures were available, there was no assurance that these were being followed.

Leaders did not establish effective governance systems to manage staff recruitment, and they did not carry out the checks set out in their own recruitment policy. They also failed to put in place a process to risk‑assess which staff required Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

When we requested job descriptions, leaders could not provide them for all staff. The practice manager told us individuals knew what their jobs were, but their roles had not been formalised.

Leaders managed staff appraisals ineffectively and record keeping was inconsistent. Apart from three staff members, they had not carried out performance reviews or appraisals for over five years, and some staff who had worked at the practice for more than ten years had never received an appraisal. When we requested records showing how staff received supervision, the service could not provide any evidence of clinical or non‑clinical staff supervision.

The system for managing staff training was not effective. The training matrix shared with us showed training such as for safeguarding, infection prevention and control, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Basic Life Support had not been a priority and there was no evidence that many staff had been trained. The provider also failed to monitor training to make sure it was kept up to date.

Patient confidentiality and information security was not taken seriously. Boxes of patient records were kept in an unlocked room and staff were not trained in the GDPR.

The system for the management of prescription security was not effective. The service did not keep a record of prescription serial numbers when they were received by the practice. There was no prescription security policy to guide staff.

Practice meetings were not held regularly, and meeting minutes were scarce. Systems for identifying, capturing and managing risks and issues were ineffective and not robust.

Leaders did not manage significant events and complaints effectively. They did not record all incidents, and they provided little evidence that complaints or significant events had been discussed with the wider team where appropriate.

The service did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The provider did not have an active Patient Participation group. The last minutes from any meetings was from 2020. We were advised that this was something that they wanted to reimplement but were struggling to get volunteers.

Leaders did not prioritise continuous learning, innovation or improvement, and they did not encourage creative approaches to improving people’s experiences or outcomes.

Their processes for sharing learning from incidents were ineffective, and they did not record or act on all significant events in line with their policy. The practice had no system to oversee or audit clinical consultations or record keeping, and leaders did not carry out appraisals to support staff development.

The National GP Patient Survey results from July 2025 showed below‑average performance, but leaders had not formally reviewed the findings and planned to do so in January 2026.