- GP practice
Ball Tree Surgery
Assessment report published 12 March 2026
Contents
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
Responsive
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 Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.
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.
Person-centred Care
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 relevant changes in people’s needs.
Care plans reflected people’s needs, goals and preferences. Our review of clinical records showed people were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. People who provided feedback for this assessment were positive about their experience. Staff we spoke with were able to provide examples of how they had adjusted care to meet people’s individual circumstances and preferences.
Care provision, Integration and continuity
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.
We saw the service worked in partnership with other providers to meet the needs of its population. The service had tailored its provision to meet diverse needs, for example, building relationships with community groups and local schools to promote good mental health. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community and mental health teams.
The service had improved the support available to people living with frailty. The proportion of people aged over 75 in the local community was relatively large compared to the national average. The service aimed to promote people’s health, independence and wellbeing and to support their carers.
Providing Information
The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. People were informed as to how to access their care records.
Listening to and involving people
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.
The National GP Patient Survey (2025) results showed that 89% of respondents said theywere involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment during their last general practice appointment (91% nationally).
We saw complaints were managed in line with the service’s policy. Learning from complaints was evident and staff were able to identify changes made as a result of people’s feedback, including complaints. One person told us they were satisfied with the way the service responded after they raised a concern.
The service did not have an active patient participation group at the time of the assessment but was in the process of setting this up. The service had displayed an open invitation to join the group in the waiting areas and on the website. The service had established a group of patient volunteers who supported the annual Covid-19 immunisation clinics, for example directing people to car parking.
Equity in access
The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
In response to the National GP Patient Survey (2025) data, the service had made changes to improve access to the service. All appointment requests were reviewed through a GP-led appointment triage system with the senior GPs carrying out the reviews. The service had also located a GP alongside the reception team to support staff to book appointments with the most appropriate clinician according to clinical need. The reception team told us this had proved very helpful to them. The leaders were in the process of expanding and introducing a more comprehensive online system while retaining the flexibility to allow people to book appointments in person or by telephone (for example people without digital access). People we spoke with told us they found obtaining an appointment straightforward and usually reasonably quickly. The reception team were also positive about the appointment system and told us there was enough capacity to meet people’s needs. There were systems in place to provide continuity of GP where appropriate. The service had reviewed its population needs and invested resources to ensure there were designated staff to carry out home visits to people who were housebound or lived in care homes. The telephone system included a ‘whisper’ function which enabled people with complex needs to be routed straight through to the reception team.The service provided primary care services to people on the ‘special allocation service’ and were aware of the health needs of this group. They provided continuity of care for people on the scheme until they were successfully assigned back to their local GP services.
Appointments were available outside working hours through the Primary Care Network hub service.
Equity in experiences and outcomes
Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.
Leaders proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including in the voluntary sector, to address local health inequalities. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.
The service had processes to ensure people could register at the service, including those in more vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. The service promoted the fact that it was signed up as a ‘Safe Surgery’ and was open to all, including recent migrants and people waiting for asylum claims to be processed. The Safe Surgery initiative is led by Doctors of the World UK and helps GP surgeries make their services more accessible to all.
Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.
Planning for the future
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.
Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation and these decisions were reviewed so that any changes were reflected in the plan. This information was shared with other services as necessary. Staff involved in providing this care emphasised the importance of building a relationship of trust with people and their families; starting these conversations early; and proactively liaising with other services, for example, hospice providers.