Patford House Surgery Partnership

Updated 29 December 2025

Date of Assessment: 25 March to 26 March 2026. Patford House Surgery Partnership is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 14,850 people under a contract held with NHS England. Services are delivered at 3 sites: Patford House Surgery, Beversbrook Medical Centre, and Sutton Benger Surgery, which also features a dispensary.

The National General Practice Profiles states the service population has a working‑age and older adult profile, with higher representation among people aged 50–75 years compared with the England average and fewer people aged under 15 years. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 8th decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

This assessment covered the Responsive key question since this was previously rated Requires Improvement in March 2022. At this assessment, people were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Updated 29 December 2025

People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Recent survey results, including from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT), showed people were satisfied with services. For example, 81% of responses from the service’s FFT feedback between March 2025 and March 2026 were very good, good, or neither good nor poor. CQC received feedback from 611 people who used the service, 478 of which were positive. Examples of feedback included timely access, with same‑day or rapid appointments repeatedly praised, especially when concerns were urgent. However, there was an emerging theme that some people found the online booking system difficult to use. For example, comments described the process as frustrating, over-complicated and sometimes not well suited to certain groups, including elderly people, people with learning disabilities and people who simply wanted a straightforward request resolved. This was shared with the service, and they acknowledged this and told us they held drop-in support sessions to assist those struggling with the different online systems and staff were able to complete the online forms on behalf of people who used the service.

There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. Representatives from the PPG reported leaders responded to their feedback by making positive changes, such as including the PPG in choosing a new phone system for the service and acting on the group’s recommendations. The PPG noted this new phone system had a positive impact on people who used the service, which was also evident in the feedback provided directly to the CQC.