- GP practice
Ball Tree Surgery
Report from 24 July 2025 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 17to 19 September 2025. Ball Tree Surgery is an NHS GP practice. It delivers primary care services to around 15,000 people under a contract held with NHS England. The service is provided from the main surgery site in the village of Sompting and a branch site known as the Kingfisher Branch (19-21 Culver Road, Lancing, BN15 9AX). People registered with the service can use either site.
We carried out this assessment because we had not inspected the service since 2015. At our previous assessment, the service was rated as Good overall and for all key questions.
The National General Practice Profiles show that the age profile of the service population differs from that of England nationally with a higher proportion of people aged over 60 and a markedly higher proportion of people aged over 75. There is a lower proportion of adults aged 20 to 49. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation in the service population is in the 6th decile (6 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others. Most of the local population are White (94%) with 2% Asian and 2% Mixed. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working in and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
The service had a positive learning culture and people could raise concerns. There were effective systems for reporting and learning from incidents. People were protected from abuse. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any identified risks were mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. However, the service had fallen behind with medicines reviews and people were not always receiving timely reviews.
Staff reviewed people’s needs taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. The service involved people coming to the end of life and their families in decisions about their care and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.
We received positive feedback about the way people were treated at the service. We received examples of kindness and compassion. We found staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. The service supported staff wellbeing.
The service provided information people could understand. People were able to access the service in a timely way. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities. The service sought feedback from people and acted on it.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening and learning and leading by example. Leaders were described as inspirational, visible and supportive. Staff felt encouraged to give feedback. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. There was a culture of continuous improvement with a focus on innovation and joint working for the benefit of people.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the service. Recent survey results from the National GP Patient Survey (2025) showed that 77% of respondents described their overall experience of the service as good. This is in line with the national average score for this indicator of 75%. We spoke with several people who were registered with the service and who had been involved as volunteers helping to run seasonal vaccination clinics. All were positive about the service. They told us the staff were caring and it was generally easy to obtain an appointment. People told us that the clinicians took time to listen. People described specific examples where they felt the staff had provided excellent care to them or family members, such as at the end of life. One person had raised concerns about aspects of the service and felt that the service had listened and taken steps to improve. People described the service as well-organised and the lead GP as ‘passionate’. The main critical comment about the current service was that the service would benefit from larger premises.