- GP practice
The Jersey Practice
Assessment report published 1 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: Remote Clinical searches were carried out on 14 January 2026 and the site visit took place on 15 January 2026.
The legal status of The Jersey Practice is a partnership since its CQC registration in 2023. It changed from limited company to a partnership in May 2023. The practice was last assessed in March 2017. This comprehensive assessment was undertaken because of the length of time since the last assessment.
The Jersey Practice is a GP Practice and delivers General Medical Service (GMS) to approximately 9,265 patients in the London Borough of Hounslow under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profile stated that the population make up for this location is 58.0% Asian, 19.3% White, 8.5% Black, 3.2% Mixed and 11.0% other non-white ethnic groups.
Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population is in the 4th decile (4 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This practice is in a lower decile indicating it is in a more deprived area on the national scale. 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.
SAFE: Staff could raise concerns and understood risks and how to manage them. People were protected and kept safe; however, not all patients with safeguarding concerns had alerts on the records of their household members within the clinical system and others were no longer registered at the practice yet remained on the safeguarding register. The facilities did not always meet the needs of the people and were not always clean and well maintained. Risk assessments were carried out but oversight of the action plans were not followed up in a timely manner such as those of fire safety and Legionella risk assessments. Learning from complaints was not always analysed, recorded and shared with staff and recorded in staff meeting minutes. Significant events were not always correctly assessed, managers did not always complete appraisals regularly at the appropriate time for the staff. Medicines were not always managed well but the service involved people in planning for any changes. Emergency medicines and equipment were provided and well-maintained. Fridge temperature checks were monitored and records maintained. Blank prescription forms were stored securely and appropriately.
EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs, however, health check reviews for people with learning disability were not always consistently completed. Patients identified as carers did not have any consistent offer of support or had their health checks completed. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for best outcomes. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. However, patient records reviewed showed that mental capacity for some of the patients was not recorded in the DNACPR (Do not attempt Cardiopulmonary resuscitation) document.
CARING: People had positive feedback about being treated with dignity and respect; kindness and compassion. Staff protected the privacy of the people.
RESPONSIVE: The service provided information people could understand. Staff knew how to support patients with their complaints and responded to them appropriately.
WELL- LED: Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, and approachable. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. However, we found concerns with administrative oversight of daily practice schedules which included a lack of effective system to monitor staff training, safe recruitment procedures and building maintenance such as completion of action plans recommended from risk assessments. There was no evidence that the Patient Participation Group (PPG) was adequately structured to ensure improvement to service delivery.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment (regulation 12) and good governance (regulation 17). We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. There were 7 responses to the Friends and Family Test from the patients for the latest data (December 2025) all of which were positive. The latest National GP Patient survey (2025 results) showed the patients were satisfied with the service received. CQC received feedback from 8 patients through our give feedback on care experience online forms, 7 of these responses were mainly or wholly positive. However, there was negative feedback in relation to communication about follow up on referrals, parking, overcrowding at the waiting area.
Feedback received from the local Healthwatch in the London Borough of Hounslow showed both positive and negative patient care experiences. The positive experiences from the data collected by the local HealthWatch included ease of access, caring staff, and improvement on the appointment booking system. The negative experiences of care included long waiting time to get a referral to secondary care, long time for reception staff to answer the phones, wrong details on referral forms, lack of knowledge on how to support autistic people, reception staff attitude and communication issues, inadequate support for women about their health as some of them felt dismissed, and rushed consultations. Patients CQC spoke to as part of the assessment process were very positive about their experience of care. However, there was mixed feedback about consistency of PPG meetings and how the PPG meeting minutes were recorded and shared with the patients to show continuous contribution to improve service delivery. Some of the patients listed as PPG members were not aware of such a group and meetings.