Dr Watson & Partners Also known as The Friarwood Surgery

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 that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement due to a deterioration in patient satisfaction feedback regarding access and appointments. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.

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.

The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Patients had access to appointments provided by clinicians including GPs, members of the nursing team, and pharmacists, as well as additional support via referral to other specialist services.

The National GP Patient Survey results from 2025 showed high levels of patient satisfaction. For example, during their last general practice appointment, 91% of respondents stated they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment. This was in line with local and national averages of 91%. A review of care records showed patients were supported to understand their condition, and were involved in planning for their care needs. These findings were supported by comments made by a member of the clinical team who told us how they worked with patients to understand their needs, manage their expectations, and discuss with them and agree treatment options.

The provider ensured that care records reflected the physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to additional needs such as communication requirements.

We saw that staff had received additional training to support individuals with specific needs, this included those with a learning disability or autism. Patients with a learning disability had a named GP who would support their care and undertake reviews. Staff had also received awareness raising and training regarding dementia and veterans’ health issues which gave them a greater understanding of the care needs of these patients. In the near future, the provider planned to become accredited as part of the Pride in Practice programme. Through this participation it aimed to become more inclusive for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) patients, ensuring services are safe, accepting, and meet diverse needs.

We found that leaders and managers had a good understanding of the health and care needs of their patient population. The provider worked in close collaboration with other partners including their primary care network (PCN). The provider offered additional services which included spinal health clinics, gynaecological clinics, dermatology services, and abdominal aortic screening services. In addition, other activities delivered in conjunction with partners included work in relation to health, wellbeing and exercise, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and the management of cholesterol.

Where referrals were made to external services, these were monitored and followed up appropriately. There was an integrated approach to patient care, and the provider reported that services worked well together.

The provider had increased the length of appointments from 10 to 15 minutes, to allow improved engagement and patient care and treatment, and there was appointment availability related to specific groups such as children and young people. For more urgent treatment requests the provider had an on-call duty doctor who could deal with these on the same day.

The provider met regularly with other stakeholders to discuss and support patients who were vulnerable or who had complex needs. This included regular safeguarding and palliative care meetings.

The provider provided continuity of care whenever practicable and possible. For example, online bookings could allocate patients to the last clinician they saw, and patients who were vulnerable, or had specific/complex conditions had named clinicians. Patients were also able to request the type of appointment they would like to receive such as a telephone appointment rather than a face-to-face appointment when this was seen as being clinically appropriate.

The provider told us that they made reasonable adjustments to meet the needs of patients, and planned in the near future to undertake a survey to further identify the specific needs of patients.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The practice had a detailed website which included news and updates, details of consultations and appointments including the NHS App and online access, extended hours services, health coaching and social prescribing information, and pages dedicated for their Patient Participation Group (PPG). We saw that the provider and the PPG had worked together to produce and distribute a simple guide to patients on how to access appointments. Advice leaflets and online guidance links were shared with patients to better understand their care and treatment. Within the practice building there were numerous noticeboards which carried comprehensive information and signposting advice to patients. Other information was shared with patients via social media and by scrolling messages in the waiting area.

We saw that the provider made adjustments to support the communication needs of patients; this included the use of translation and interpretation services, the provision of a hearing loop at reception, and had available materials, including easy read materials, explaining care and treatment and support for patients. Individual communication needs were noted on the patient’s record where relevant.

Staff from the practice had supported patients to improve their understanding and usage of digital communication and access routes into the practice. When necessary, staff helped people to complete online appointment requests. The provider shared data with us which showed the significant amount of assistance given by staff. For example, in December 2024 staff had helped patients complete 26 online appointment requests, compared to December 2025 when staff had helped with 96 requests.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, and treatment. They involved people in decisions about their care, and told them what had changed as a result.

There was an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) in place which met quarterly. A member of the PPG told us that the group felt supported by the practice, and that the practice respected and took notice of their views. In 2026 it was planned that the provider would work with the PPG to discuss the National GP Patient Survey findings. It was planned as part of this work for the PPG to attend the practice and engage with patients to better understand issues and understanding of access and appointment booking.

We saw that the provider routinely sought feedback following an appointment via the NHS Friends and Family Test, and by reviewing the National GP Patient Survey, and comments, complaints and compliments made by patients. Overall, patient feedback was generally positive. For example, results from the National GP Patient Survey for 2025 showed that 95% of respondents felt their needs were met during their last general practice appointment. Though we saw results regarding the ability to contact the practice were mixed.

Managers told us how patient feedback and complaints had been used as an opportunity for improvement, and that changes had been made within the practice as a result of this feedback. As an example of this, following responses made to the National GP Patient Survey in 2023 when only 21.5% of patients said it was easy to contact the practice via telephone the provider had introduced a number of actions which included increasing staff capacity to handle calls, upgrading the telephony call back function, and increasing patient awareness of alternate routes to contact the practice. We saw that from 2023 to 2025 the survey results had shown an improvement, with the latest results showing that the number of patients who found it easy to contact the practice by telephone had increased to 40%.

The provider had processes in place to receive, investigate and resolve patient complaints. Senior staff had been appointed to act as leads for complaints, and a policy, last updated in November 2025, was in place to guide staff. Information on how to complain was also available on the practice website, and complaints could be received by a number of routes including in person, by telephone, and online. Over the previous 12 months the provider had received 19 complaints. There were no emerging themes from these complaints. During our site visit we reviewed 2 complaints and found they were actioned in an appropriate and timely manner, discussed in meetings, and that learning was shared with staff. Where appropriate, patients were provided with an apology and signposted to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if they wished to escalate their concern.

Managers and staff told us how learning from patient feedback and complaints had been used as an opportunity for improvement. We saw that changes had been made within the practice as a result of patient feedback. This included supporting patients with access and use of the NHS App and appointment booking platform, and ensuring incoming correspondence and results had been fully assessed prior to contacting the patient concerned.

Overall, the service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service was open from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday, with early nurse appointments being available Monday to Friday from 7.30am. Bookings and requests for services could be made in person, via the telephone, online using the NHS App and an NHS approved software platform. Appointments available to patients included urgent/on the day appointments, routine appointments and home visits. The practice had systems in place which ensured there were appointments available on the day for specific groups such as children and young people, and for vulnerable patients or those with complex needs. Patient appointments included face-to-face consultations, telephone consultations, and there was the ability to hold video consultations. Housebound patients were also able to access home visits, and the provider, working with their primary care network delivered urgent and planned care services to 3 residential care homes. We spoke with a representative of a care home supported by the practice. They told us that the services their residents received was responsive and meet their needs. Regular meetings were held with staff from the residential homes to effectively plan for and manage the care needs of residents.

Staff had been trained in care navigation and were able to direct patients to more suitable and appropriate services such as local pharmacies, mental health support and social prescribers. Effective care navigation was supported by guidance procedures and safety netting to ensure care decisions were safe and suitable to meet the needs of the presenting patient. Processes were also in place regarding the assessment and triage of appointment requests made online by patients. This latter activity had been subject to clinical audit, and which showed that decisions made were appropriate.

In addition to appointments at the practice, by working within their primary care network (PCN) patients had access to extended hours services delivered at a nearby practice. The provider hosted or was able to refer patients to a range of other services which included PCN social prescribers, physiotherapy support, and screening services including abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.

The National GP Patient Survey 2025 results showed mixed patient experiences when contacting the practice. Results showed that whilst 63% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice via the website (local average 50% and national average 51%), only 40% of respondents found it easy to contact the practice via the telephone (local average 51% and national average 53%). Though, it is recognised that this figure of 40% for ease of telephone contact had improved significantly from the figure of 21.5% achieved during our last inspection of the service in 2023. In response to the National GP Patient Survey results the provider had taken active steps to improve those areas where patients had shown low satisfaction, such as ease of telephone access. They had for example, increased staffing of telephone lines, instituted a call back function, and supported patients to contact the practice via alternate routes, thereby freeing up the telephone lines into the practice.

The provider monitored performance measures in relation to access including call answering times and online triage processing. Telephony data submitted for the practice showed that in November 2024 they had received 6,200 calls of which 3,208 connected with an inbound call rate of 8.6 calls per hour, data for November 2025 showed that calls received had increased to 10,015, of which 5,876 connected with an inbound call rate of 14.1 calls per hour. The provider was aware of the high number of dropped calls, and told us that they planned to analyse this further, as well as undertaking a patient access survey. We examined a sample of appointment data and saw that the number of appointments delivered by the practice had risen slightly from a weekly level of 1,071 in November 2024 to 1,138 in November 2025.

We found the premises to have good physical accessibility with disabled car parking spaces available, wide powered access doors, and lowered reception desks suitable for wheelchair users. Staff had been trained how to support patients with additional needs such as those with dementia during their visits to the practice.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care, and delivered equitable care to patients.

Actions to achieve this included the use of interpreters and translated materials, the provision of detailed advice and signposting, and providing longer appointments where needed. Staff received equality and diversity training, and had received specific care navigation training to signpost patients to services most appropriate to their needs. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care, and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Actions included extended appointment times, and making appointments for patients at quieter times.

The provider had recognised that some specific population groups of patients required additional support, and had put in place measures to address this. For example, they had promoted and offered health checks to migrant patients and their families, and had increased staff awareness and trained staff to better support patients with dementia, and veterans and their families. The provider planned to become accredited as part of the Pride in Practice programme, in order to become more inclusive for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT+) patients.

The provider offered and undertook health checks including NHS health checks, new patient checks, and learning disability reviews. In 2024/25 we saw that the provider had undertaken 98% of their learning disability reviews. The provider told us that they worked very closely with the local authority in respect of patients on their learning disability and mental health registers, sharing information to ensure vulnerable patients were not left unrecognised and unsupported. The provider also worked closely with their local primary care network in the delivery of care services to 3 residential care homes.

Staff understood the requirements of legislation when considering consent and decision making when patients were making decisions for their future care needs, and had access to policies and advice to support them. The provider had appointed an end-of-life lead, and patients on the practice’s end-of-life register had a named clinician for continuity of care. Staff worked closely with the primary care network care home team to coordinate care for patients in the 3 residential care homes they supported.

Staff helped and supported patients to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The provider had 59 patients on their palliative care register. We saw that patients on the register had their individual care and needs reviewed regularly in conjunction with other health and care providers. Staff told us how they worked with patients, and their carers, to support their understanding of their future care options.

We reviewed a selection of individual patient ReSPECT forms (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment), these are personalised plans that are used to record a person's preferences and recommendations for their emergency care needs. Our findings showed that these had been completed in line with guidance.