Dr Bouch and Partners Also known as Bridge Road 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.

This key question has been rated as good.

People received care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. The service had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. There were examples of where care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity and delivered improved outcomes for people. The service provided information people could understand, and people were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service had made improvements to access to appointments. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care home representatives gave positive feedback regarding how clinicians ensured care and treatment was centred around each person. Feedback from people demonstrated staff understood their individual needs.

Clinical staff told us during consultations they discussed relevant information, listened to people’s concerns and expectations, identified people’s needs and preferences and agreed a plan of care together which suited the person. They involved family members and carers as appropriate.

Clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition, were involved in planning, and in making decisions about their care.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff could refer people, or people could self-refer, to a range of services, for example, appointments with first contact physiotherapy and a mental health practitioner were available at the service.

We received positive feedback from a range of partner agencies, which included for example, the district council, community and specialist mental health services and a charity organisation. This included how strong communication and a flexible, responsive approach had supported successful local care provision.

The service was an Armed Forces veteran friendly accredited GP practice. They had a dedicated GP and health and wellbeing coach who had completed specific training. Staff identified veterans at registration and documented this in people’s clinical record at any time upon notification. Health checks were offered at a local veteran’s charity.

Care home representatives gave positive feedback about the continuity of visiting clinicians. People were booked appointments with their named GP, which included follow up appointments for continuity. Feedback from people who used the service was positive regarding care provision and most feedback was positive about continuity of care.

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

Staff recorded information on people’s clinical record, to support their communication or access needs. Staff gave examples of information they had provided to people to aid their understanding of care and treatment options, for example easy read and simple clear language. Staff told us interpreter services were available. All staff had completed essential communication skills training.

We did not receive any concerns from people being able to access appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in a way that suited their needs. People were informed how to access their clinical record.

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

Complaints information was available at the service and on their website. We saw complaints were managed in line with their policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made because of people’s feedback. For example, when GPs text message people to make an appointment, they now advise them if it is non urgent and receptionists also provide this information. Leaders recorded, reviewed and shared positive feedback and compliments with staff.

People who provided feedback had no specific views or concerns in this area. Representatives from the Patient Participation Group told us their views were listened to and gave examples of changes made following people’s feedback. For example, a new fence had been installed to keep the pathway clear, especially for people who used a wheelchair.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People could access the service to suit their needs for example online, in person and by telephone.

National GP Patient Survey data published in July 2025, showed people had mixed satisfaction with access by phone and with the overall experience of contacting their GP practice. Results from the NHS Friends and Family Test, from February 2025 to January 2026, showed 97% of people rated their overall experience of the service as good or very good. Care home representatives gave positive feedback about routine and urgent access. Feedback from people was more mixed, although recent comments showed improvement.

In response to the National GP Patient Survey data and feedback from people, the service had identified changes to improve access to the service. For example, all appointments were for 15 minutes and on Mondays all appointments were same day appointments to maximise capacity. People were given a choice of face to face or telephone appointments for same day appointments and were booked into a specific appointment time.

The service shared the GP timetable on their website which showed the working days of the GP partners, salaried GPs and GP Registrars.

A domiciliary practitioner (paramedic) visited each care home weekly. For urgent visits, the person’s named GP or domiciliary practitioner usually attended to maintain continuity. A home visit GP undertook visits to people who were housebound.

Staff told us people with the most urgent needs had their care and treatment prioritised. There was level access to the practice buildings, and all treatment rooms were on the ground floor.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The practice manager led the Primary Care Network’s (PCN) population health project, launched in 2022 to reduce local health inequalities. The project identified 206 people with heart failure, diabetes and social vulnerability in high‑deprivation areas. The health and wellbeing coach and care coordinator contacted people to understand their needs, remove barriers, and support access, self‑management and engagement.

From year 2 (Apr 2023–Mar 2024) to year 3 (Apr 2024–Mar 2025), outcomes improved. Health, social and financial wellbeing questionnaires were completed, and onward referrals increased from 43 to 118 into 24 different services, ensuring people were directed to the most appropriate support. Clinical updates also improved, for example, smoking status was updated 390 times (up from 27), blood glucose updated 384 times (up from 72), and kidney function updated 364 times (up from 79). Feedback from people was positive, and the PCN embedded this work into routine practice from April 2025.

Staff which included the PCN Health and wellbeing coach always supported the ‘Wellness on Wheels (WOW)’ bus by completing health checks, vaccinations and offered medical advice and screening. People were informed the WOW bus was going to be in the town centre and invited them to attend. People could also drop in if they were passing. In the previous year, 47 health checks were completed for people whether they were registered at the service or another service.

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. Processes were in place to ensure people could register at the service, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people, Travellers, asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants. For example, people who could not read or write and people with no address or identification, received support to register.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The service maintained a register of people at the end of their life. Monthly multidisciplinary (MDT) team meetings were held where people were discussed and reviewed. People’s care records were updated as appropriate.

The service had a Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) policy. People were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, which included cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The service had completed an audit of ReSPECT form documentation and coding for people who lived in a care home. Areas for improvement had been identified, and an action plan was in place. Our review of people’s records showed decisions were appropriate and made in line with relevant legislation.

Care home representatives provided positive feedback regarding how GPs involved individuals and their families in DNACPR and ReSPECT decision-making processes.