- GP practice
EMC Surgery
Assessment report published 27 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 19 June 2026 to 06 July 2026. EMC Surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to 14200 people under a contract held with NHS England. EMC Surgery is based at 2A Cavendish Road, Birmingham B16 0HZ and has 3 branch surgeries; Belchers Lane Surgery, 197 Belchers Lane B95 5RT, Glebe Farm Road Surgery, 37-41 Glebe Farm Road B33 9LY and Hobmoor Road Surgery, 533 Hobmoor Road, B25 8BH.
According to the latest available data from the National General Practice Profiles, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 37% White, 41% Asian, 5% Mixed, 12% Black and 5% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the first decile (1 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.
We carried out an announced comprehensive assessment of all 5 key questions (Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive, and Well-Led).Remote clinical searches were carried out on 19 June 2026, and the site visit was on 29 June 2026. This inspection was first since the provider registered this new location following a change of address.
The service had a good learning culture, and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean, well-maintained, and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications,s 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, we found some inconsistencies around emergency medicines equipment. We also found that risk assessments were not comprehensive for building works at all of the branch locations.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal, and health needs. Care was based on the 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. Staff involved those important to people and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.
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.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and supportive, helping staff develop 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. Full staff meetings were held weekly. However, we saw that risk assessments were not comprehensive. However, we identified opportunities to strengthen governance oversight in relation to understanding and auditing environmental issues, risks and staff training.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were satisfied with services. There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. Representatives from the PPG described how managers made positive changes because of feedback, such as investigating long wait times on the telephone prior to changes in the telephony system.