The Bucklebury Practice Also known as Chapel Row Surgery

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing. Feedback received by CQC indicated the staff demonstrated commitment to supporting people and meeting their individual needs.

This service scored 85 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and they respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff at the practice demonstrated professionalism and respect in their interactions with colleagues across partner organisations, supporting effective collaborative working.

Arrangements were in place to promote patients’ privacy. Patients were able to request to speak with reception staff in private if they wish to discuss. Personal or confidential information.

The recent national GP Patient Survey data reflected people felt listened to and were treated with kindness. Staff we spoke with understood Gillick competency and there was a process to ensure young adults had control over their own privacy and the amount of parental involvement in managing their care and support.

We noted the practice performed better than the national average in the results of the latest 2026 National GP Patient Survey. For example:

96% of respondents to the survey felt the healthcare professional at their last appointment was good at treating them with care and concern, compared to a national average of 86%.

98% of the respondents to the survey felt they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to during their last general practice appointment, compared to a national average of 93%.

23 patients provided feedback directly to Care Quality Commission describing a positive experience and caring approach by practice staff. Feedback received were highly positive and consistently highlighted the caring and compassionate approach of staff with patients reporting that they felt listened to, treated with dignity and respect. [TO1]Patients commented the staff took the time to understand their individual needs, communicated clearly and worked with them to identify appropriate solutions and provide effective support.

[TO1]Would be good to add any patient quotes if you can.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients’ personal, cultural, social, religious and equality characteristics needs were understood and met. Patient communication needs were met to enable them to be fully involved in their care.

The practice maintained active carers register with 305 identified carers (3.3% of the practice population). Patients with caring responsibilities were identified at registration and were offered ongoing support including regular access to vaccination, flexible appointment booking and coordinated appointments where appropriate to meet their individual needs.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff helped patients and their carers to access advocacy and community-based services.

They provided patients with information and guidance to enable them to make informed decisions about their care. The national patient survey results from 2026 indicated:

82% of the respondents to the survey felt they have had enough support from local services or organisations in the last 12 months to help manage their long-term conditions or illnesses, compared to the national average of 70%.

97% of the respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment, compared to the national average of 92%

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

There was a system for appointment triage that ensured people with immediate needs had access to services. Staff we spoke with knew the process for referral to emergency support, including mental health crisis teams.

The practice had an effective appointment system that ensured patients with immediate or urgent needs were able to access care promptly. Reception staff were supported by a duty doctor who was present daily within the reception area, providing real time clinical oversight. This enabled immediate validation of decisions, timely escalation where required, and a responsive approach to managing patient demand or clinical queries.

There was a coordinated post discharge pathway to improve continuity of care for older and vulnerable patients. Responsibilities between GPs and social prescriber were clearly defined supporting effective multidisciplinary working

The latest GP Patient Survey carried out, showed that

98% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment, in comparison to the national average of 90%.

72%of the respondents to the survey felt they were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment, compared to the national average of 57%.

The survey results indicate that the practice had an effective appointment system that ensured patients with immediate or urgent needs were able to access care promptly.

The practice cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they were valued by leaders. Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working. We saw team building days were established within the practice.

We noted there were comprehensive clinical supervision arrangements in place with clearly defined roles, responsibilities and escalation processes to support staff working under supervised practice models.

We received 21 completed staff questionnaires from staff working at the practice. Feedback from staff questionnaires and staff interviews indicated the team worked well together, and everyone was helpful and approachable. We found that staff had access to regular appraisals.

The feedback from staff was mixed regarding communication and staffing levels at the practice. Staff reported that there were vacancies within the reception team and felt additional staff were needed to manage workload effectively. The practice advised that recruitment was currently underway to fill these vacancies. Some staff suggested that the communication within the practice was sometimes disjointed. They felt that communication could be improved, particularly around sharing new developments, service improvements and changes taking place at the practice.

They practice responded positively to the feedback and had plans to introduce a monthly newsletter to improve internal communication.