- GP practice
Bellevue Medical Practice
Assessment report published 22 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Bellevue Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 12,955 patients under a contract held with NHS England. Bellevue medical practice is part of the Modality Partnership, an organisation operating across Sandwell, Birmingham, Walsall, Wokingham, Hull, Airedale, Wharfedale and Craven, Lewisham and East Surrey, providing NHS services to more than 410,000 patients. The partnership holds a corporate based organisational structure consisting of a national board, an executive divisional board, operational and clinical management groups, as well as management leads within these divisions.In the Sandwell and Birmingham division, there are 11 services operated by the Partnership.
The National General Practice Profiles states that 39% of patients are 39% White,26% Asian, 19% Black, 6% Mixed and 10% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the second decile (2 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.
At the previous inspection in November 2022, under the former methodology, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall. The practice was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well‑led with a breach in regulation 12(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008(Regulated Activities) Regulations. The practice was rated Good for Caring and Responsive.
This was an announced comprehensive assessment of all five key questions (Safe, Effective,Caring, Responsive and Well‑led)undertaken to follow up on the identified breach. Remote clinical searches were completed on 6 March 2026, and the site visit took place on 9 March 2026.
The service has now been rated good overall, with good ratings across all key questions.
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. However, there were some gaps in the management of risk. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained, and any related risks mitigated. 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.
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 made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people and made decisions in the person’s best interests when they did not have capacity. However, the service was below the national target for childhood immunisations.
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 understood their roles and responsibilities.There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas such as having short meetings every day for staff to discuss concerns or seek advice.
Since the last inspection, the provider had made improvements in the management and monitoring of patients on medicines that require monitoring and patients with long term conditions were reviewed effectively. The provider is no longer in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe).
People's experience of this service
People were satisfied about the quality of their care and treatment,however some results from the National GP Patient Survey showed lower than local and national averages in relation to access.
The service was working at an organisational level to improve access to the service by better training for staff and using technology such as telephone automated wait lists. There was a patient participation group (PPG) that had recently being re-established who represented the views of people using the service. The provider told us that they were actively encouraging people to join the PPG.