Updated 31 January 2025
We undertook a comprehensive assessment from 5 June 2025 to 3 July 2025. Herstmonceux Integrative Health Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 6000 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 97% of patients are White, 0.7% Asian, 1% Mixed, and 0.3% Black. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation in the practice population group was in the 7th decile (7 out 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 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 good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. There were systems to protect people and safeguard them from abuse. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, they were clean, well-maintained and any risks mitigated. However, there weren’t always enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Whilst managers made sure most staff received essential training and regular appraisals, not all staff in clinical roles received regular, structured supervision and feedback. Processes for monitoring patient’s health in relation to the use of medicines was not always effective.
The practice had effective systems to manage patients with long term conditions and identify those with previously undiagnosed conditions. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff worked with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment. The practice had a programme of quality improvement activity and routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected patient’s privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. However, for people wishing to see a female GP, choice in their care and treatment was limited. The practice supported staff wellbeing.
The practice had established mechanisms for engaging with the community and worked closely with its patient participation group. 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. Feedback from patients indicated they felt involved in planning their care and understood their treatment options. Whilst the service was accessible, demand for appointments was high. Staffing pressures meant patients were sometimes unable to book an appointment ahead of time.
Leaders had an overall vision; however, this was not always clearly understood by staff. Staff reported that managers were visible, approachable, and supportive. Whilst they felt able to speak up, they were not always assured that their concerns were understood, or that they would be acted on. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was evidence of innovation.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.