- GP practice
Satis House
Assessment report published 5 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 17 July 2026 to 15 August 2026. Satis House Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 3,268 under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 94% are White, 2.1% are Asian, 0.8% are Black, 2.7% are Mixed and 0.3% are Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the ninth decile (9 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 is the first time we have inspected this service since its registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
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 were clean, well maintained and generally met people’s needs. However, during the inspection, environmental factors were identified that presented potential risks to people. Leaders were receptive to findings and took swift action to strengthen safety measures.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
The service had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) that represented the views and experiences of people using the service. Members of the PPG told us leaders responded to feedback. For example, following concerns raised about access, the practice reviewed and adapted its triage system to address reported difficulties and improve people’s experience of accessing care.