De Beauvoir 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

People’s care, treatment and support had promoted equality, removed barriers or delays, and protected their rights. Leaders and staff had proactively sought ways to address barriers to improve people’s experience, acted on information about people's experiences and outcomes, and allocated resources and opportunities to achieve equity. The service had complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics, and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

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 had ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and had worked in partnership with them to respond to relevant changes in their needs.The latest national GP Patient Survey found that 90% of patients had stated the last healthcare professional they saw was good at treating them with care and concern, and 91% stated they were good at listening to them. In addition, 86% had stated they had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional they saw or spoke to.Care plans had reflected the physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Our review of clinical records showed patients had been supported to understand their condition and had been involved in planning for their care needs. Patients we spoke with during the assessment confirmed they had been involved in decisions about their care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care had been joined-up, flexible, and had supported choice and continuity. Leaders told us the service had used technology to continually monitor performance, manage health conditions, and improve access. Staff told us the service ran searches to identify vulnerable patients at high risk from poor health or isolation.

We saw the provider had worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population.

The service had been actively involved in their local primary care network, working with other services to improve local health inequalities.

The service reviewed long-term condition monitoring at their management and clinical team meetings. The service attended multidisciplinary meetings regularly to review and improve patient care.

The latest national GP Patient Survey had found that 93% of respondents felt the healthcare professional they saw had all the information they needed about them during their last general practice appointment. Patients we spoke with during the assessment confirmed that the healthcare professionals they had seen had the necessary information to support their care.Leaders and staff explained how they had made information available to as wide an audience as possible. Staff told us they had understood people’s communication needs and gave examples of how they had provided information in accessible formats. People using the service, their families, and carers (where appropriate) had been provided with information that was accessible, safe, secure, and supportive of their rights and choices.Policies and procedures had been in place to ensure staff provided information tailored to individual needs. This had included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, interpreting and translation services for people who did not speak English as a first language.

The latest national GP Patient Survey found that 91% of patients had stated the healthcare professional they last encountered was good at listening to them during their last general practice appointment.

Before the assessment, staff were invited to complete an anonymous feedback form about their experience of the service. All respondents reported feeling that they were listened to.

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

The provider held a Patient Participation Group meeting focused on diabetes care to strengthen patient understanding, improve engagement, and gather feedback to shape future service delivery. Staff provided an overview of the annual review process, monitoring options, medication considerations, and special guidance such as sick‑day rules and fasting during Ramadan.

Patients reported positive experiences overall but highlighted the need for clearer, simpler language, more early education for newly diagnosed individuals, and support for those who struggle digitally. Suggestions included personalised care plans and structured group education. The service planned to use this feedback to refine communication and improve consistency in diabetes care.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them which was reinforced by an access to appointment protocol. This promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected patient rights. Most patients we spoke to told us they could access clinical care when desired via different avenues. Results from the latest national GP Patient Survey showed the service had been in line with other local practices for the percentage of patients who responded positively to the overall experience of making an appointment (80%) and were satisfied with the appointment(s) they were offered (71%). Seventy-three percent of patients found it easy to get through to this GP practice by phone compared to 51% locally and 53% nationally. The provider developed an action plan in response to the GP Patient Survey to further improve patient experience.

During the assessment, we found that the service had recently introduced Saturday appointments, offered once a month. We also noted that, from December 2025, appointment lengths had been increased to 15 minutes to support more effective consultations. In addition, the service operated an uncapped triage system, ensuring that patients were not restricted in their ability to access care when needed.

The appointment system required patients to complete an online request form, which a clinical team member had triaged. Patients who could not complete the form had been able to contact the service via telephone or attend in person, where reception staff had assisted them. Reception staff had received care navigation training. Systems had been in place to recall and invite patients for childhood immunisations and cervical cancer screening.

Treatment rooms had been available on the ground floor, and an automatic door had been installed at the entrance.

Staff and leaders had actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and had tailored care, support, and treatment accordingly. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider and to CQC, had been positive. Staff had treated people equally and without discrimination. Leaders had proactively sought ways to address barriers to improving people’s experience and had worked with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, to address local health inequalities.

The latest national GP Patient Survey found that 77%of respondents described their experience of contacting their GP practice as good, 94% had found reception and administrative staff helpful, and 60% had found contact through the website easy. Eighty-six percent of patients had known what the next step would be after contacting the service, increasing to 88% within two days

The latest national GP Patient Survey found that 97% of patients had stated they were involved as much as they wanted to be in decisions about their care and treatment.

People had been given the opportunity to express their wishes regarding DNACPR and had been supported to plan their future care while they still had the capacity to do so. People’s decisions and what mattered to them had been reflected in personalised care plans, which had been shared with others when necessary. The patients we spoke to during the on-site assessment told us they had felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment.