- GP practice
Mitcham Family Practice
Assessment report published 2 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 25 September 2025 to 27 November 2025. Mitcham Family Practice is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 4500 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the practice population of children, older people and those of working age are in line with local and national averages. The practice area is comprised of predominantly white British at 47%, other ethnicities being 24% Asian and 17% Black, 6% Mixed and 6% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 6th decile (6 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 did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety, with weaknesses in systems to manage risks and review when things went wrong. The service did not have clear, documented processes to make sure all staff had the knowledge, skills and experience for all parts of their role. Safe recruitment practices were not consistently followed. The service had systems to make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences, but these were not all consistently effective. The service made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
EFFECTIVE: The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective. They did not consistently document a complete assessment of their needs or consistently deliver care in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff worked with other agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. When people did not have capacity to make decisions, staff involved people important to them in deciding what was in their best interests.
CARING: People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and generally supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment.
RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback. However, communication with people who raised complaints did not always tell them what had changed as a result, correspond with information recorded centrally about events or reflect good practice. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment.
WELL-LED:The service had not established effective systems to mitigate risks. Although there were areas where improvements had been made; differing professional opinions within the leadership team impacted the ability to foster a ‘whole practice team’ culture of learning andimprovements. There was limited collaboration between partners on events that affected the practice, such as significant events and complaints. There had been repeated breaches of regulation since the provider was first inspected in 2015.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to the leadership and governance of the service. 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 generally satisfied with services. There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service.