Updated 18 August 2025
Date of Assessment: 19 November 2025 to 26 November 2025. Rosedean House Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to 9,288 people under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 97.88% of people using this service are White and 2.12% of people are Asian, black, mixed, or other ethnic groups. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 4th decile (4 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. 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 met the needs of people and were clean and well-maintained. However, risks were not always mitigated. At the time of the inspection there were not always enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers did not always make sure staff received an induction and training .Dispensary was managed well and people were involved in planning any changes. However, we found that there were shortfalls in relation to emergency medicines. People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. People with long term conditions did not always receive the appropriate health monitoring for their condition. 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. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service had taken steps to support staff wellbeing. However, staff fed back to us that morale was low within staff teams and they were struggling with workload pressures. People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback about the service. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. The service was using locum clinicians and therefore could not always provide continuity of care to people. The service had a future vision and plan. 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. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and safe and effective staffing.. As a result of this we asked the provider for an action plan in response to our findings.