The Bucklebury Practice Also known as Chapel Row Surgery

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

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

This service scored 79 (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 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.

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. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The national survey results indicated of patient were at the core of the service. For example, 90%of the respondents knew what the next steps would be after contacting their GP practice, compared to a national average of 84%.

The clinical records demonstrated that patients were routinely involved in discussions and decisions about their and treatment.

The provider understood 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. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community.

The practice offered extended access appointments on weekdays along with appointments on 1 Saturday each month. This helped working aged patients within the patient population and supported continuity of care for patients at the practice.

The practice 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. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.

The provider demonstrated a strong commitment to accessibility and inclusion. Interpreter services, including British Sign Language, were available, a hearing loop was available, and patients were supported by reception to complete the digital triage forms if they were unable to do so independently.

The practice 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. Complaints relating to access and communication resulted in practical service improvements including offering telephone booking alongside digital appointment options to improve accessibility for patients unable to use online services.

The recent National GP Patient survey results suggested 96%of the respondents to the survey found the reception and administrative team at this GP practice helpful, in comparison to the national average of 85%.

There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) in place. We obtained feedback from the PPG chair who told us that their views were genuinely valued and that they were meaningfully involved in shaping service improvements and enhancing the patient experience.

We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and changes and improvements were made as a result of patient feedback, including complaints. Minutes from meetings demonstrated complaints was a standing agenda item and was discussed with the practice team to improve outcomes for patients.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and from feedback from members of the community the provider had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, they had extended appointments for people with a learning disability.

There was an automatic door fitted to the entrance. The dispensary was accessible via a hatch window for the collection of prescriptions. The disabled parking bays were located immediately outside the dispensary supporting access for patients with reduced mobility.

We noted the service performed better than the national average in the results of the recent 2026 National GP Patient Survey. This showed people could access the service when they needed it in a way that suited their needs, such as by telephone, in person or through the practice website. For example,

87% of the respondents to the survey found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone, compared to a national average of 57%.

88% of the respondents to the survey found it easy to contact this GP practice using their website, compared to a national average of 58%.

88%of the respondents described their experience of contacting their GP practice as good, compared to the national average of 73%.

Staff suggested they continually reviewed triage arrangements to improve continuity of care, particularly for patients seen by different clinicians.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their 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 treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people.

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. There were registers held for those patients who were vulnerable who were on the palliative care register or 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. We reviewed a random sample of 4 clinical records of people who had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) form in place and found they were relevant, completed and available within the clinical record.

We also identify an example where the DNACPR documentation could not be located in patients record. The practice responded proactively by obtaining the missing patient number to ensure records were accurate and updated.