- GP practice
Camelford Medical Centre
Assessment report published 30 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 8th July 2026 to 15th July 2026. Camelford Medical Centre is a GP service and delivers service to 6,658 under a contract held with NHS England. Camelford Medical Centre was registered with CQC on 8 September 2025. As a result, some published national data sources did not cover a full year of activity under the current registration. This included the GP Patient Survey, which did not fully reflect the service operating under the current provider registration. The service operates from a main surgery in Camelford and branch surgeries in Delabole and St Breward.
The service has dispensing facilities for people who live more than a mile away from a dispensing chemist. A delivery driver is available to deliver medicines to the non-dispensing sites.
The National General Practice Profiles states that 98% of people recorded as White and 2% recorded as people from other ethnic groups. 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’s 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 systems to protect people from abuse and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. Staff recognised and responded to risks to people’s health, including signs of deterioration, and there were systems to support safe referrals, test result management and continuity of care. There were enough staff to provide safe care and staff received training and support relevant to their roles. However, the service did not always effectively identify, monitor and mitigate risks across all branch sites. Improvements were needed in learning from incidents and complaints, environmental risk management, infection prevention and control, and medicines security.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Care was based on current evidence and good practice. Staff worked with other services involved in people’s care to support coordinated care and positive outcomes. The service supported people to live healthier lives and monitored outcomes, including screening, immunisation and long-term condition reviews. Leaders had identified areas for improvement, including childhood immunisation uptake and diabetes outcomes, and had plans in place to improve these.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and treated them as individuals. People were supported to make choices about their care and treatment, and staff responded to people’s immediate needs. The service promoted staff wellbeing and staff told us they felt supported by leaders.
People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment, and the service provided information in ways people could understand. The service understood the needs of its local rural population and worked to provide care across its 3 sites. People could give feedback and raise complaints, and leaders acted on some feedback received. However, systems to review feedback and complaints for themes and trends were not embedded into practice.
Leaders were visible, approachable and supportive, and staff described a positive culture. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and told us they felt able to raise concerns. The service worked the local community to support people’s care. However, governance systems were not always effective in providing assurance that risks were consistently identified, monitored and mitigated across all branch sites. Improvements were needed in oversight of incidents and complaints, infection prevention and control, environmental risks, staff records and medicines security. Leaders were receptive to feedback and had taken action to address some concerns, but further work was needed to ensure improvements were embedded.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to 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 gave mixed feedback about their experience of the service. Many people were positive about the care and treatment they received and described staff as friendly, respectful, professional and compassionate. Feedback from the service’s patient survey showed most respondents felt involved in decisions about their treatment and understood their treatment plan.
People also told us they valued having access to local branch surgeries, particularly because the service operated across a rural area where travel could be difficult for some people. People told us local access supported older people, carers and those with limited transport options.
However, some people told us they experienced difficulties accessing the service. Feedback from 20 people raised concerns about telephone access, long waits for calls to be answered, difficulties securing appointments and challenges using digital access routes. We also received feedback from 4 people raising concerns about follow-up processes, communication of results and continuity of care.
The service had completed their own patient experience surveys and leaders had taken action in response, including increasing reception staffing at peak times, improving appointment information and introducing plans for more regular surveys. At the time of assessment, the service did not have an active Patient Participation Group, although leaders told us they had identified a new chair and participants to relaunch the group.