Dr Jinmi & Partners Also known as Houghton Regis 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

This means we looked for evidence the service understood the needs of the people and communities they served and put them at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We looked for evidence people accessed the care and treatment they needed when they needed it.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Requires Improvement.At this inspection, the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

This is because:

• Although people could access appointments when and where they needed them and feedback about the new appointment booking process was mostly positive, the results of the 2025 GP Patient Survey showed fewer people were positive about accessing the practice than the local and national averages.
• Feedback from people who used the service was mixed about their experiences, and the findings from the 2025 GP Patient Survey showed fewer people were positive about their experiences of the service than the local and national averages.
• Whilst the practice responded to complaints appropriately, information about how to complain or provide feedback to the service was difficult to read.
• Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were not always reviewed when patients moved between services and up-to-date decisions were not always clear.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The findings of the 2025 GP Patient Survey showed people’s experiences of the practice were not as positive as in the findings of the 2024 survey, and were below the local and national averages. Of the people who responded to the survey:

• 56% responded positively to the overall experience of their GP practice.
• 77% said during their last appointment the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at listening to them.
• 77% said during their last appointment the healthcare professional was very good or fairly good at treating them with care and concern.
• 83% said during their last appointment they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to.

Other feedback from patients was mixed.

Some patients described practice staff as great, brilliant, professional and patient. Some people said they could not fault the practice and “highly recommended” the practice. Some patients we spoke with told us they felt clinicians listened to them and understood their wishes.

However, other patients told us they did not feel clinicians listened to them, particularly about mental health needs, and lacked empathy and professionalism.

Staff recognised the diverse health and care needs of the practice population.

Since the last inspection, the provider had identified a high demand for mental health support. In response to this, a mental health nurse now visited the practice 2 days a week, rather than 1 day a week.

The practice supported residents living in 2 local care homes. Each care home was supported by a named doctor, who visited every 1 or 2 weeks. The practice offered visits to the care homes between these ward rounds when needed for specific residents.

A practice nurse told us about monthly clinics they held at the practice during which they saw patients jointly with a specialist nurse. They explained how this continuity had helped patients feel more comfortable and confident in the care they received.

The practice partly complied with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), a requirement for all providers of NHS care. The AIS applies to people who use a service, and their carers or parents, who have information or communication needs because of a disability, impairment or sensory loss. For example, the hearing loop for people who are deaf or have difficulty hearing was not working.

The practice displayed some patient information leaflets, including some in different languages relevant to the people using the service. It was clear how to, and it was easy to, translate information on the practice’s website into a range of different languages.

The provider was registered as a data controller with the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Information was available on the practice’s website and there was a recorded message advising patients when they telephoned the practice how their information was stored and managed.

The practice stored confidential and sensitive information safely and securely.

However, systems for making sure keypad-coded areas were only accessible by those the practice wished could be strengthened.

Information about how to complain was available in the practice’s waiting area, however, this was difficult to read.

There was information on the practice’s website about how someone could make a suggestion, comment or complaint. However, this lacked detail about the practice’s complaints policy and procedures and what people could expect.

One way people could share their thoughts with the practice was by completing an online Feedback Form.

People were also invited to share their suggestions to improve how the practice operates or manages its services by completing an online NHS Friends and Family Test Feedback Form. However, there was no link on the practice’s website to the form.

Posters with a link to the NHS Friends and Family Test were displayed in the practice’s waiting area.

There was a ‘Patient Suggestion Box’ placed near the reception desk in the practice.

The practice had a system for recording and responding to complaints, which included a tracker.

The practice had recorded 15 complaints since the last inspection in February 2025.

We looked at some of these complaints and found the practice had responded to them in a timely way. On some occasions, the practice had met with the complainant and had agreed with them a formal response was not required. However, for complaints where the practice had provided a formal response, we found they offered an apology when it was appropriate and contained information about what the person could do if they were not satisfied with the response.

The practice had displayed the findings of the GP Patient Survey in the waiting area.

The practice had specific telephone lines for people to speak with a secretary, prescription clerk or the Patient Liaison Officer, or for test results or general enquiries. This meant people telephoning the practice to speak to these staff did not wait so long to do so, and people telephoning the practice to book an appointment did not wait so long for their call to be answered.

The results of the 2025 GP Patient Survey showed slightly more people found it easier to contact the practice than in the results of the 2024 survey. This was in line with the national trend. However, the number of people who were positive about access at the practice continued to be lower than the local and national averages. Of the people who responded to the survey:

• 30% were positive about how easy it was to contact the practice by telephone (compared with 53% nationally and 40% in the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes (BLMK) area).
• 49% responded positively about their overall experiences of contacting the practice (compared with 70% nationally and 60% in the BLMK area).

In mid-September 2025, the practice changed to a ‘total triage’ system, in line with requirements set out by the commissioners of the service, the Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes Integrated Care Board. This meant an online form, called an ‘eConsult’, needed to be completed for patients requesting some types of appointments.

Patients who could not fill in the online form themselves could telephone or visit the practice, where a member of the reception team could complete a ‘lite’ version of the form on the patient’s behalf.

These forms, except for administrative requests, were reviewed and acted on by a doctor.

Feedback from patients about this new system was mostly positive. However, this was not yet reflected in surveys such as the GP Patient Survey. Patients said access had improved and they were generally able to get an appointment. Patients said they had been offered appointments in a timely way, the same day when it was needed. People also told us it was easier to book an appointment, including in advance.

At the time of our inspection, we saw timely appointments were available, with the practice’s doctors, nurses and healthcare assistants, both for the same day and 2 weeks ahead.

The practice offered a range of appointment types including face-to-face, telephone, online and home visits.

There was information in the surgery, on the practice’s website and a recorded message on the practice’s telephone system to support people to understand how to access services.

Patients registered with the practice could also access support from an advanced nurse practitioner, clinical pharmacy team, physiotherapist, mental health nurses and a nurse who specialised in people with a learning disability or autism, who were employed by the Titan Primary Care Network (PCN). The practice was a member of this network, which included 3 GP practices working together to address local priorities in patient care.

When the practice was closed, patients were directed to access support, treatment and advice from the NHS 111 service or emergency services.

The practice supported more young people and fewer older people than the national average and the average for the BLMK area.

We found 44% of patients registered with the practice had signed up to online services.

A number of patients registered with the practice did not speak English as their first language. When needed, the practice could offer longer appointments and use of a telephone-based interpreter service. Some staff members could speak other languages and could support discussions.

Practice staff supported those staying in a hostel, who registered with the practice temporarily. Residents included those experiencing domestic abuse, where they could stay safely. The practice had identified these patients needed specific support and had created a role in the practice for a ‘Domestic Abuse Champion’. This person was given training and time for the role. However, because the role was new, the practice was not yet able to show the impact for patients.

People who were or might be vulnerable could register with the practice, including those with no fixed abode such as people who were homeless, Travellers, and refugees.

The practice also supported a large population of housebound patients, including those in supported living accommodation and various services for people with a learning disability.

Patients could ask for repeat prescriptions online or by filling out a ‘repeat prescription request form’ and taking it to the practice. The practice did not accept repeat prescription requests by email. The practice also did not take repeat prescription requests over the telephone, in line with national recommendations.

Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions completed by practice staff we looked at during this inspection had been recorded in line with relevant legislation.