• Doctor
  • GP practice

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

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Coalpit Road, Bath, Somerset, BA1 7NP (01225) 858686

Provided and run by:
Drs Prees, Weldon, Hogg and Sykes

Assessment report published 16 October 2026

On this page

Well-led

Good

7 October 2026

We looked for evidence that the service’s leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care and promoted an open and fair culture. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Shared direction and culture

Score: 3

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality, human rights, diversity, inclusion and engagement. Staff and leaders understood the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.
All staff had contributed to the development of the service’s vision and strategy, which was kept under review. Leaders monitored and reviewed progress against the delivery of their strategy. The service was aware of local challenges which affected their service, such as the projected increase in the local population over the coming years and worked with partner agencies to address these challenges. Staff and leaders actively promoted equality and diversity and worked to identify the causes of any workforce inequalities. They demonstrated a positive and compassionate listening culture that focused on learning and development.
We received external stakeholder feedback from a sample of patient participation group (PPG) members, community nursing and community mental health teams. Overall feedback was positive, which noted how the service worked as part of a multi-disciplinary team to provide care co-ordinated to meet people’s needs, including frailty assessments, cancer care co-ordination and home visiting arrangements.
 

Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders

Score: 3

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Freedom to speak up

Score: 3

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion

Score: 3

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Governance, management and sustainability

Score: 2

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.
Governance arrangements had not identified or addressed infection prevention and control (IPC) related risks in a timely way, including legionella management, workplace vaccinations, environmental cleanliness, equipment decontamination, and the use of carpets and fabric curtains within clinical areas. Risk assessments relating to carpets and fabric curtains within clinical rooms had not been completed at the time of our assessment and were only developed following our on-site visit. This indicated governance processes had not been effective in identifying and managing environmental IPC risks proactively.
However, all staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Leaders proactively supported staff and regularly met with them to complete appraisals and performance reviews. Staff could access all required policies and procedures, which were kept up to date and reflected latest guidance. Leaders held regular meetings with staff, during which they discussed emerging risks and potential improvements to the service. Leaders clearly recorded any actions that arose from these meetings and shared these with staff. Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously, which included verifying people’s identity during remote consultations. Staff submitted data and notifications to external agencies as required.
 

Partnerships and communities

Score: 3

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Learning, improvement and innovation

Score: 3

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.