During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 27 November 2025 to 3 December 2025. Hucclecote Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 9,000 people under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states the ethnic make-up of the practice is approximately 94% White, 2% Asian, 2% mixed, 2% Black and other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 10th decile (10 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Leaders investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The service was taking action to address the small backlog in the summarising of records for people joining the service. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. The service was addressing issues with the record-keeping of cleaning tasks with an external service. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Leaders made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. However, we identified some shortfalls in the oversight of the contents of staff recruitment files and ensuring staff complete mandatory training.
Staff managed medicines and involved people in planning any changes. However, we identified some shortfalls with service’s response to a medicine safety alert the safe storage of oxygen cylinders.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity to make their own decisions. However, we identified consent relating to resuscitation decisions were not documented appropriately. The service was aware of this issue and were in the process of reviewing their systems and processes.
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 and were flexible in making reasonable adjustments to help staff return to or remain at work.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service ensured information was presented in a clear an accessible manner to support people to understand it. 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 prevent discrimination and promote equality. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. However, we identified future planning was not always documented appropriately. The service was aware of this issue and were in the process of reviewing their systems and processes.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt encouraged to give feedback and were treated fairly, without fear of bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. The service had shared its experience of practice management with other local services to demonstrate their systems and processes. There were some shortfalls with the oversight of governance which the service took action to address.