Updated 8 August 2025
Date of Assessment: 27 August 2025 to 02 September 2025. Browney House Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 2,600 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The practice operates across 2 sites: Browney House Surgery and Croft View Surgery. The National General Practice Profiles states that 22.7% of patients are aged 65 years or over, compared with the England average of 17.8%. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 5th decile (5 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 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.
This was a comprehensive assessment, undertaken because the service had not previously been inspected since registration and potential risks had been identified.
The service fostered a positive learning culture, with staff confident to raise concerns and incidents investigated thoroughly. People were kept safe, and staff understood and managed risks well. Facilities were clean, well-maintained, and met people's needs. While staff received training and appraisals, some risks remained. These included gaps in mandatory training, incomplete risk assessments, inconsistent appraisal of long-term locum staff, areas of prescribing oversight and a lack of assurance that vaccination records were in place for both clinical and non-clinical staff.
People were involved in assessments of their needs, and staff considered individuals’ communication, personal, and health needs. Patients received care that was generally effective and informed by current guidance. Regular searches were used to support monitoring and diagnostic checks, and steps had been taken to recall patients at risk. Care was informed by current guidance. Some prescribing and monitoring practices required improvement to fully align with national standards.
People were treated with kindness, compassion, and respect. Staff protected their privacy and dignity, and care was tailored to individual needs and preferences. Patients were offered choice in how they accessed care, including face-to-face or telephone appointments. The service supported staff wellbeing, and interactions observed reflected a caring and person-centred approach.
People were involved in decisions about their care and offered choice in how they accessed services. While feedback mechanisms were in place, response rates were low. Care was delivered fairly and in line with individual needs, and efforts were made to support accessibility and inclusion.
Governance arrangements were not consistently robust. Improvements were needed in areas such as policy updates, oversight of mandatory training, risk assessments and record keeping to ensure safe and effective care. However, leaders were visible, knowledgeable, and supportive, and most staff described the practice as a positive and well-managed place to work. Staff told us they felt confident to raise concerns, understood their roles and responsibilities, and were encouraged to contribute ideas for improvement. Systems to support learning and development included appraisals, clinical searches, and regular staff meetings.
We found 1 breach of regulation in relation to good governance. We asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.