Drs Prees, Weldon & Hogg Also known as Batheaston Medical Centre

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 the service met people’s needs, and staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The service performed better than the national average in the results of the 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 online services. For example, all accessibility feedback themes exceeded local and national averages. 97% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to the national average of 77%. 87% of respondents to the survey found it easy to contact the service by telephone, compared to the national average of 57%. 96% of respondents to the survey felt they waited the right amount of time for their last appointment, compared to the national average of 69%.
The service provided a model of ‘continuity of care’. This meant people accessed care through their preferred named clinician and did not have to retell their health conditions and needs more than once, receiving person-centred care.
There were processes to ensure the on-the-day duty GP reviewed and contacted people whose online triage request deemed their clinical need as urgent. The service also had an electronic triage request system which was used and monitored daily for people’s requests that could not be triaged due to the complexity of the request or for routine requests. From our review of the service’s appointment system and electronic triage request system, the service demonstrated a proactive approach to maintaining timely access to care. We found all electronic triage requests were reviewed with people being contacted promptly the same day. The service consistently maintained capacity for same-day appointments across a range of clinicians, including GPs, nursing staff and home visiting services. This enabled people to access appointments without unnecessary delay and supported equitable access across people using the service.
The service monitored telephone demand and maintained low waiting times. Call handling data showed most calls were answered promptly and call abandonment rate targets were met. Leaders reviewed access data regularly and adjusted staffing levels to meet demand. For example, between January 2026 and August 2026, the average call waiting time was 6 minutes. Staff told us any consistent waiting times above 10 minutes would prompt additional action such as, implementing additional administrative support to assist with answering calls. This also demonstrated consistent positive outcomes, below the national call waiting timeframes.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. They tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.
Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local services, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and the local ‘boating community’. The service made reasonable adjustments to meet individual needs in line with the Accessible Information Standards. For example, people with additional accessibility needs were supported to access and understand their care, including those whose first language was not English, through the use of translation services. This was reflected in the feedback shared from people who used the service, which was positive. Staff told us they had completed relevant awareness training in supporting people with learning disabilities, autism and dementia.
 

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.