- GP practice
Netherley Health Centre
Assessment report published 9 March 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This assessment was carried out on 11 and 16 December 2025. Netherley Health Centre is a GP practice which provides a range of primary medical services from its location at Middlemass Hey, Liverpool, L27 7AF. The practice delivers services to approximately 3,400 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The provider is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the following regulated activities; diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.
Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1st decile (1 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. The latest available data with regards to ethnicity of people in the local area showed this was 94.2% White, 3.16% Mixed, 1.1% Asian and 0.8% Black. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery.
We assessed all 5 key questions to establish if the services provided were safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We rated the service as requires improvement for providing a safe and a responsive service and the remaining key questions are rated as good. The service is rated requires improvement overall. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
The service worked to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. This included working with partner agencies. The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staffing levels were not sufficient to meet the needs of the patient population. The provider was in the process of reviewing the staffing establishment. This was required as a priority to ensure sufficient numbers of clinical and non-clinical staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience are working at the service. Staff told us they had protected learning time for them to undertake training, learning and professional development and that they had received training appropriate and relevant to their role. Systems were in place to ensure staff were up to date with national guidance, evidence-based practice and required standards and care and treatment was provided in line with best practice guidance. The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. Staff managed medicines well in relation to prescribing. People who used the service were treated with kindness and compassion and staff protected their privacy and dignity. Patients’ individual needs and equality characteristics were understood, and services were provided to meet these. Patients’ communication needs were identified and met to enable them to be fully involved in their care. The provider acted upon feedback from people and made improvements to the service in response overall. Formal and informal complaints were investigated and learning from these was shared across the staff team and used to drive improvement. However, feedback about access to the service remained largely negative and the provider had not taken sufficient action to date to improve people’s experience. The service was located in a purpose-built building that provided the required facilities such as safe access for people with physical disabilities. The premises were clean and contained the appropriate facilities to support infection prevention and control. There were clear and effective arrangements for governance, management and accountability. The provider worked collaboratively and in partnership with relevant external stakeholders, commissioners and partner agencies to provide and develop effective services. Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and continuous improvement.
People's experience of this service
The provider encouraged and used feedback from people who used the service to make improvements. Complaints were taken seriously, fully investigated and responded to and any learning from complaints was shared effectively across the staff team. Feedback from people who used the service showed that their experience of the service was mixed but positive overall with regards to the care and treatment provided when they had accessed the service and in their interactions with staff and their consultations with the clinicians. However, feedback with regards to access to the service and obtaining an appointment was consistently negative across the national GP Patient Survey, other patient feedback surveys and information shared directly with CQC.
The service received lower than local and national average scores for patient satisfaction with regards to their overall experience of the service. Lower than average scores were received for people feeling listened to, being treated with care and concern, being involved in decisions about their care and treatment, and having confidence and trust in the healthcare professionals. Significantly lower than average scores were received for questions relating to access and experience of contacting the practice and seeing their preferred healthcare professional.
Recent results from the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed that over the previous 6 month period (June 2025 and November 2025) between 74% and 83% of respondents were positive about their experience of the service. Negative experience tended to be linked to access and securing an appointment.