The Bell Surgery Also known as Dr Chris Langley & partners

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 inspection, we rated this key question as Good. At this inspection, the rating remains the same.

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.

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 practice was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We saw the appointment system and clinical skill mix was under constant review to reflect changes in demand.

The practice performed significantly better than national averages in the results of the 2025 National GP Patient Survey regarding access. 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:

• 85% of respondents to the survey said they found it easy to get through to this service by telephone, compared to a national average of 53%.
• 66% of respondents to the survey found it easy to contact this service by using their website, compared to a national average of 51%.
• 66% of respondents to the survey said they usually got to speak to their preferred healthcare professional when they wanted, compared to a national average of 40%.
• 84% of respondents to the survey said they were offered a choice of time or day when they last tried to make a general practice appointment, compared to a national average of 54%.
• 92% of respondents to the survey described their overall experience of contacting this service as being good, compared to a national average of 70%.

This was mirrored in feedback from people who provided feedback during our inspection specifically regarding access. Patients feedback included “efficient booking, prompt appointment and highly professional service”, “no waiting, was seen on time” and “prompt, courteous service from staff member at exceptional surgery.”

In response to feedback from people who used the service and staff feedback, the practice had made changes to improve access. This included amending staff numbers to reflect increases in demand at certain times.

Staff told us how they would accommodate the needs of people, including seeing people outside of their normal working hours if necessary, offering alternatives to sitting in the waiting room and considering continuity of care and how this would impact on people’s wellbeing if people moved outside of the practice boundary.

There was good access to appointments, with same day appointments still available during our site visit. Leaders also advised that they would accommodate patients who attended without an appointment whenever this was practicable.

The building was single storey, meaning treatment rooms were available on the ground floor, and an automatic door had been fitted to the entrance to ensure ease of access to the service. The practice had its own car park and there were disabled parking bays available.

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. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience to address any local health inequalities. For example:

• The practice accommodated home visits and provided a weekly ward round to the aligned care home (55 residents) who accessed GP services from the practice.

• Staff followed processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The practice was also a registered ‘Safe Surgery’ and supported patients or potential patients who were homeless, in temporary accommodation or seeking asylum. A ‘Safe Surgery’ is a GP practice with a declared commitment to addressing the barriers people face in accessing healthcare or support.

• The practice was an accredited Veteran Friendly practice with 32 veterans coded on the clinical record system. This meant that as part of the health commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant, the practice had a dedicated clinician who had a specialist knowledge of military related health conditions and veteran specific health services.

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.