- GP practice
Biddlestone Health Group
Report from 19 June 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 18 September 2025 to 26 September 2025. Biddlestone Health Group is a GP practice and delivers service to 10,720 under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 84.2% are white, 9.2% are Asian, 2.5% are mixed, 2.1% are black and 1.9% are other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 7th decile (7 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice 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. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and most risks mitigated. The practice did not have a fire risk assessment in place at the time of the site visit, but this was rectified shortly after. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. The practice put in place an action plan following the site visit to ensure staff received the appropriate level of safeguarding training for their role, as recommended in national guidance. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.
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 and when taking decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. The practice was below target on some screening and immunisations. The practice was taking appropriate steps to encourage uptake but needed to explore further the reasons behind the lower uptake to understand how they could support further improvements. Although the practice had a policy in place to encourage those who repeatedly failed to attend for review or monitoring appointments to engage, they had not enacted this.
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.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and could be 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. 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. The practice did not have an active patient participation group in place at the time of the site visit. They had started to make plans to support the development of a group for the practice.
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 supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. There were some gaps in governance processes, but leaders put plans in place to address these following the site visit. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were satisfied with services. There was not an active patient participation group (PPG) to represent the views of people using the service. The practice told us they planned to invite patients to join a new group with the first meeting planned to take place in December 2025. However, the practice had used available patient feedback information, as well as their own patient survey to gather and act upon the views of patients. They had implemented a total triage approach to support improved access to the service, following a survey they undertook in March 2025 which had identified the 8:30am rush as the main concern from patients. The practice planned to undertake a follow up patient survey imminently, but they told us anecdotal feedback from patients had been positive, following initial concerns during implementation as patients got used to the new system. Follow up surveys were issued to patients seen in August 2025, at the end of September and beginning of October 2025. The practice sent us the results following the site visit. This showed more people rated the service as extremely easy to get through on the telephone than when surveyed in September 2024 (+8.1%). More people were contacted within 0 to 1 hours of submitting an online request (+3.7%) with greater satisfaction with this (+21.0%). More people were very satisfied with the appointment or advice offered (7.1%) and more felt their expectations were exceeded in their experience of making an appointment (+22.2%). The practice still needed to consider these results further to explore how they could continue to improve patient experience.