- GP practice
St Georges Medical Centre
Assessment report published 26 September 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Overall service commentary
Date of Assessment: 18th June 2025 to 18th July 2025. St Georges Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers service to 7607 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 62% is white, 21% Black, with the remainder being made up of Asian, mixed and other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1 decile (1 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.
SAFE:
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents; however, learning was not always shared with staff who were unable to attend meetings.
People were protected and kept safe. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience.
The facilities required improvement and the provider had not routinely mitigated risk associated with the premises.
The provider did not always have effective systems for the safe management of medicines.
EFFECTIVE:
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 and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.
CARING:
Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and care. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. Staff took time to understand peoples’ individual needs and worked with them to achieve best possible outcomes. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff health and wellbeing.
RESPONSIVE:
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information to people in a way that they 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.
WELL-LED:
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.
However, the service did not have clear governance systems and processes in place to mitigate risks. We found breaches of regulation in relation to Regulation 12, Safe care and Treatment and Regulation 17, Good Governance. 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. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were satisfied with services and felt listened to by the clinician treating them.
Patients told us that overall getting through to the service was easy enough, there were mixed comments regarding appointments, with some reporting easy access, while others expressed difficulty getting an appointment.
The service had a Patient Participation Group (PPG) but were struggling to recruit members and there had not been any meetings for at least 6 months when we carried out the inspection. The PPG had not made any suggestions on how to improve the service.