- GP practice
Hazeldene Medical Centre
Assessment report published 20 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 10 December 2025 to 3 March 2026. Due to the scale of the service and the specialist expertise required within the CQC inspection team, there was an extended period between the start and completion of the assessment. The assessment comprised 3 days of remote staff interviews, 2 days of remote clinical searches, and 4 days of onsite visits.
We carried out this announced comprehensive assessment as the service had not been inspected since its registration and due to concerns received by CQC from various sources. The service was previously registered with the CQC as a sole provider. In July 2025, the registration was updated to reflect a change to a partnership model, including the previous registered individual. We reviewed all key questions and quality statements as part of this assessment.
Hazeldene Medical Centre, also known as GP Pathfinder Clinics, is an NHS GP service that delivers care and treatment to approximately 100,000 people under a contract held with NHS England.The service consisted of 4 clinical sites and a headquarters in Brent, North West London. At the time of this assessment, the service also offered cervical screening at 2 dedicated hub sites in Ilford (East London) and New Cross (South East London).
The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnicity of the service population is 43% White, 31% Asian, 13% Black, 5% Mixed and 8% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the service population group is in the 4th decile (4 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service 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.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. The facilities and equipment were clean and well-maintained. 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. However, there were inconsistencies in referral management, timely review of test results, infection prevention and control processes, and coding systems for safeguarding. Leaders had begun to take action to address these issues.
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 in best interest decisions where people lacked 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. The service recognised it served a highly diverse population and demonstrated innovative approaches to gathering and responding to feedback from people most at risk of experiencing inequalities in access, experience, and outcomes. 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 innovative ideas. The service demonstrated a strong commitment to continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system, with a particular focus on digital innovation, data-driven initiatives, access, and improving healthcare outcomes. It took a proactive approach to innovation and population health, embedding continuous quality improvement throughout its work.
People's experience of this service
Most feedback received by the CQC related to the period prior to the current provider’s registration. Although there was continuity in the service and key staff, including senior clinical leadership, this feedback was not used to inform our judgements. However, the service’s NHS Friends and Family Test (from September 2025-November 2025) showed people were satisfied with services, with 81% of respondents recommending the service. The service had an active patient participation group (PPG) representing the views of people using the service. The PPG chair spoke positively about the service, highlighting its person-centred approach, openness with people, and responsiveness to feedback from people who used the service.