The Barnabas Medical Centre

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 carried out a targeted assessment of The Barnabas Medical Centre on 2 February 2024 without a site visit. Overall, the practice is rated as good. We rated the key question of responsive as good. We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers. This assessment was carried out remotely. The process included conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing. We reviewed patient feedback from a range of sources, requesting evidence from the provider, reviewing data we hold about the service, and seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders.

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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We carried out a targeted assessment of The Barnabas Medical Centre on 2 February 2024 without a site visit. Overall, the practice is rated as good. We rated the key question of responsive as good. We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers. The process included conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing. We based our report rating by reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources, requesting evidence from the provider, reviewing data we hold about the service, and seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders.

The practice is situated within the North London Integrated Care System (ICS) and delivers General Medical Services (GMS) to a patient population of about 9,500. This is part of a contract held with NHS England. The practice is part of a wider network of GP practices in Northolt Greenford and Perivale primary care network. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the fifth lowest decile (5 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. There is a team of 2 GP partners, 3 salaried GPs, 3 practice nurses, 1 nurse associate, 1 pharmacist, 1 pharmacy technician, 1 Advanced Nurse Practitioner. The GPs are supported at the practice by a team of reception/administration staff. The practice manager provides managerial oversight. The practice was open between 8.30 am to 6.30 pm Monday to Friday. Appointments early access were available weekdays from 7.30 am to 8 am. The practice held 8 Saturday clinics per year from 8 am to 5 pm. Tuesdays the practice was open later from 6.30 pm to 8 pm. The practice offered a range of appointment types including book on the day, telephone consultations and advance appointments. Extended access is provided locally by Northolt Greenford and Perivale (NGP) primary care network, where late evening and weekend appointments were available up until 10 pm. Outside of these hours, patients were asked to contact NHS 111.

The practice had positive data from their in house patient surveys that were yet to reflect in the National GP patient survey. The national GP survey results had shown an overall decline in patient satisfaction since 2018.Patients contacting the practice via telephone had decreased by 49%. There had been a 28% decline in patient satisfaction since with appointment times offered. Overall patient experience of making an appointment had declined by 27%. Appointment times offered showed a decline in patient satisfaction by 28%. In response, the provider had asked patients for feedback and made changes to access. Positive data about access had been collated in the past 6 months that showed patient satisfaction was increasing month on month. There was an annual practice patient survey completed by the patient participation group that was then collated and the provider completed an action plan of improvement areas. All proposed changes to be implemented were then sent for patient review, with further survey data collected to ensure the patient voice drove these changes. Staff were given opportunities to give feedback weekly for their input into all practice changes.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.