BPAS - Sandwell

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 patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating changed to good. This meant patient’s needs were met.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

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

Patients’ plan of care and treatment was informed and there was shared-decision making alongside the staff. Staff gave patients different treatment options and ensured they had the information to make the right decision for them.

Patients could receive the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. There were quiet areas within the clinic for patients who had sensory requirements. All patients were asked about any preferences ahead of attending the clinic and these were accommodated where possible.

The service could support women with additional needs. Staff understood how to meet the communication needs of patients with a disability or sensory loss. Staff were able to identify where they could seek assistance for women with additional communication needs if they were not suitable to be seen at their clinic.

The premises enabled wheelchair access.

The service had a separate waiting area for patients who did not want to wait in the main waiting area (which was jointly used with a GP surgery).

The service considered the individual needs of patients. There were changing rooms available and curtains around each trolley space in the recovery area. Women were able to retain head coverings or other religious outerwear if they chose to. Patients who were under the age of 18 were able to have their escort stay with them at all stages of their treatment.

Patients understood their care and treatment options (including any associated risks and benefits) and any advice provided. Leaflets provided to each patient were comprehensive and patient assessments ensured patients fully understood the option they decided to take.

The website had a lot of information for patients to read to help them make informed decisions. They also recognised that patients might not want to be seen to be on the website. They had a “quick exit” button which you could press, and it took you immediately to a weather forecast website.

Patients were provided with information regarding the disposal of their pregnancy remains in accordance with health tissue agency (HTA) guidance.

The service held internal “STRAT” meetings which took place where there were situations that deviated from normal practice or required additional planning to facilitate treatment. These meetings included regional safeguarding, Quality Matron, Treatment Unit Manager, regional clinical director and any other teams required.

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

There was continuity in patients’ care and treatment because services were flexible and joined up. The staff communicated with other services where consent had been agreed to ensure there was continuity of care.

Patients’ care and treatment was delivered in a way that met their assessed needs from services that were co-ordinated and responsive.

The service had quarterly meetings with the commissioners when planning service development. They were part of the ‘Any Qualified Provider” procurement model to widen patient choice and improve service quality. This meant patients could choose and termination of pregnancy service within their area. The services communicated with each other when they knew patients were using their services, especially in relation to safeguarding needs.

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

Patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs. The service website had a function where all information could be translated into many different languages. Staff regularly used telephone interpreters, and this was identified at the initial booking process. They had recently upgraded their telephone system in the clinic to improve the access to interpreters. The service provided textphone services for their booking and helplines for deaf, hard-of-hearing, or speech-impaired users. There was also a tool to convert the webpages to a text only version to improve accessibility.

The service provided a patient guidance booklets which was comprehensive and outlined key advice, before treatment, treatment and recovery information.

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

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and can do so in a range of accessible ways.

Patients felt confident that if they complained, they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. All patients we spoke to were happy with their care but knew how to complain if they were not. Information on how to make a complaint was available at the service, within the information leaflets and on BPAS website. The complaint procedure outlined the stages of the formal complaint process.

Patients were sent a feedback survey to complete following their appointment. Results were very positive throughout 2025. Results ranged from 95% to 100% of patients would recommend the service. Most comments were positive including “There was nothing you could have done better.” The service received a quarterly satisfaction survey report and went through this with the staff and made improvements where needed.

Learning from complaints and concerns was seen as an opportunity for improvement and staff could give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. The service had a complaints department. They had no formal complaints and 6 local complaints in 2025; they had received 62 compliments in the same time which were always shared with the staff.

One complaint had been from a parent, of a patient who was over the age of 18, who was unhappy that they were not allowed into the initial appointment with her. This was in line with the policy to ensure the patient was not being coerced into the procedure. This had been explained by the manager and staff had ensured they saw the patient alone in line with policy.

There had been 3 complaints regarding being in the waiting room and felt embarrassed as it was a joint waiting room with a GP surgery. The service ensured as much patient anonymity as possible and only used patients first names when they called them through. There was a smaller waiting room they could use if required for patients who did not want to remain in the larger waiting area.

Complaints data was reviewed monthly as part of the dashboard and presented to the senior leaders. Action plans were created when required, although the service had received minimal complaints and therefore had no actions around complaints at the time of the inspection.

BPAS monitored the demographic data of their patients and recognised that there were certain patient groups less likely to provide feedback or complain than others. To overcome this barrier the patient engagement team, obtained feedback and complaints from patients verbally. In addition, if a complainant’s first language was not English an interpreter could be sourced to provide both verbal and written assistance. In 2022, the provider appointed a complaints and feedback co-ordinator to ensure that this process was sufficiently staffed so this group of patients did not experience a delay in receiving this additional support.

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

Patients could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

Patients could expect their care, treatment and support to be accessible, timely and in line with best practice, quality standards and legal requirements, including those on equality and human rights. This includes making reasonable adjustments for disabled patients, addressing communication barriers and having accessible premises.

Women booked their appointments directly online or requesting a call back through the BPAS Booking and Information Centre (BIC) which was open 7 days a week. Patients could refer themselves or be referred by a GP or other healthcare professional. They were asked about their health, current and previous pregnancies and risk assessments were completed to determine the best route for an appointment. An appointment was then made for the patient to have either a telephone/video call or an appointment at the clinic. Video calls were used for younger patients and for patients with hearing difficulties.

BPAS had a telephony system which supported webchat for patients who did not want to speak or could not speak with an advisor.

Patients could access services when they need to, without physical or digital barriers, including out of normal hours and in an emergency. The service was open 8am until 4pm Monday to Friday. There was an emergency support line 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Data showed in 2025, 72% of patients had their consultation within 7 days of contact, 89% had their treatment within 14 days of their consultation and 90% of patients had their treatment within 21 days following their initial contact with the clinic. On average, it took 6.6 days from contact to consultation, 5.9 days from consultation to treatment and 10.5 days from initial contact to treatment.

Physical premises and equipment were accessible. Patients were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access. Financial support was available for patients who did not have the means to cover travel or accommodation costs associated with their treatment.

Providers used patient’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for patients more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

The service provided both face-to-face appointments and telephone consultations. Women who were suitable for early medical abortions could collect their medication from the BPAS clinic or have them sent by post. The clinic made follow up calls to women assessed as vulnerable or when safeguarding concerns were identified. This information was entered onto the clinic safeguarding log and patients were followed up within 3 weeks to ensure their wellbeing and that the treatment had been effective.

There were accessible toilets for those with limited mobility. Free car parking spaces including blue badge accessible spaces were available.

The service monitored patient cancellations. They recognised this was patient choice but followed up patients where concerns were raised in the pre-operative assessment, such as safeguarding concerns or children and young patients. All patients were phoned a few days before their procedure to ensure they had all the information they needed ahead of their surgery and to try and reduce cancellations.

The service worked to ensure patients did not have their appointments cancelled last minute. However, if this happened, an acute service disruption meeting was held with senior leadership within the region, and all patients were reviewed and discussed individually and a plan put into place. A decision log, impact and action were recorded. No acute service disruptions had occurred at BPAS Sandwell since August 2024.

The Treatment Unit Manager looked at the waiting lists daily and added on more appointments where needed. They received daily waiting list reports and were flexible in obtaining appointments when required. At the time of the inspection, there was a 2 day wait for a face-to-face appointment.

Staff told us it was difficult at times when patients turned up late for their appointments and wanted to still be seen. There was no lateness company policy for the staff to refer to and they told us they felt vulnerable at times when dealing with the patients in this position. We saw the desire for this policy was also discussed in the August 2025 team meeting.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Patient’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of patients in accessing care, treatment and support, whether this is from wider society, within organisational processes and culture or from individuals. All staff had undertaken equity and diversity training.

The service was transparent with patients about their outcomes. The annual reports and quality accounts including patient outcomes were published on the website for all patients to see.

The service acted to identify and address inequalities in care experiences or outcomes. Access to home abortion (pills by post) was a well-accepted treatment option providing safe and effective abortion care. This supported some of the most vulnerable patients who experience health inequalities and who may have previously struggled to access in-clinic care. The service also offered telephone and video consultations alongside face-to-face to reduce the time and cost of travel for patients.

There was an equality diversity and inclusion group who had created a policy regarding patients who were transitioning from female to male. The service ensured it’s terminology was neutral where possible and not ruled by gender.

Patients were supported to make informed choices about their care and future planning, including contraception options and relationship choices. Staff discussed contraceptive choices based on criteria set by the UK Medical Eligibility Criteria (UKMEC) for contraception. There were remote doctors who could prescribe contraceptive medication and there was stock in the clinic which could be dispensed to the patients. Patients were also given the option to have a intrauterine device (contraceptive device that sits inside the womb) inserted at the time of their surgical procedure at their request.

Patient’s decisions and what mattered to them was delivered through personalised care plans. Patients made informed decisions about the type of termination they wanted and were supported in this journey.