- GP practice
Iridium Medical Practice
Assessment report published 21 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 28 May 2026 to 18 June 2026. Iridium Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 22,500 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The practice operates a branch site Poolway Medical Centre. We visited both sites during this inspection. The National General Practice Profiles states that 42% of the practice population are White, 41% Asian, 8% Black, 5% Mixed and 4% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1st decile (1 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the practice, the context the practice was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report. We carried out an announced, comprehensive inspection and assessed all quality statements under the 5 key questions safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
The practice had a good learning culture, which placed patient safety, openness and transparency at its heart. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Patients were protected and kept safe because the practice thoroughly assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patients, were clean, well-maintained and any 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 patients in planning any changes.
Patients were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was mostly based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in patients care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to patients and took decisions in patients’ best interests where they did not have capacity.
Feedback was mixed about whether patients were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. Patients had choice in their care and treatment. The practice was exceptional at supporting staff wellbeing.
Patients were involved in decisions about their care. The practice provided information people could understand. Patients knew how to give feedback and were confident it was taken seriously and acted on. The service was mostly easy to access and staff worked to eliminate discrimination. Patients received fair and equal care and treatment. Staff worked to reduce health and care inequalities through social prescribing. Patients were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.
We last inspected this provider in January 2025 when we found breaches of regulation in relation to good governance. We requested that the provider submit an action plan to address these breaches. Since the previous inspection the practice had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations relating to good governance.
People's experience of this service
Overall patients were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Results of the 2026 GP Patient survey were mixed. In questions about access the practice mostly scored above the national average and had improved on their 2025 results. Continuity of care was a notable exception with the practice scoring well below the national average and below their 2025 result. Whilst most of the questions about the way patients were treated by the healthcare professional at their last appointment had improved on the 2025 results, they remained either the same or below the national average. This was corroborated both by the practice’s analysis of complaints and by feedback to Care Quality Commission (CQC). Of the 104 pieces of feedback received by CQC 63 were positive. However, a theme around staff attitudes and how patients were treated by staff was evident in a proportion of the 41 negative items of feedback. The feedback from the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed patients were satisfied with services and the majority would recommend them. There was a patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the practice. Representatives from the PPG were positive about the information shared with them and managers responses to feedback however, due to lack of planning, meetings were often advertised at short notice and this limited the ability of a wide range of patients to attend.There was an acting chair of the PPG as the practice was having difficulty filling the position permanently.