The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Cornerstone Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Langworthy Centre, 451 Liverpool Street, Salford, Lancashire, M6 5QQ (0161) 212 4445

Provided and run by:
Dr Colin Ian Malcomson

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 13 July 2026. Cornerstone Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers service to 4,309 patients under a contract held with NHS England, and is located within a shared building. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 72.7% White, 4.4% Mixed, 7.1% Asian, 11.7% Black, 4.1% other non-white ethnic groups Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 2nd 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.

Managers investigated incidents and shared learning to help keep people safe. Staff understood how to identify and manage risks and had access to the equipment, training and information needed to carry out their roles safely. The practice maintained appropriate safety arrangements, including emergency medicines, equipment checks, staff training, and fire safety processes. Overall, the facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. Some areas of improvement were required, for example enhancing governance arrangements for DNACPR decisions.There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and support the delivery of safe care.

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 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. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information to people; however, opportunities were identified to improve the accessibility of patient information, including the visibility, readability, and availability of information in other languages. 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.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on supporting patients and working collaboratively. 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 and partner organisations to deliver care that met the needs of their population and were receptive to new ideas. However, some governance processes needed to be improved including oversight of DNACPR arrangements, ensuring systems were in place to code patients’ records correctly and that patients prescribed certain high-risk medicine received the required reviews. There was a culture of improvement, with examples of staff working to improve access and uptake of preventative health services.

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.

23 February 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection October 2014 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cornerstone Medical Practice on 23 February 2018 as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Staff should keep up to date with online training and the infection control lead should consider attending an external infection control training course. Staff should be trained in using the vaccines fridge data logger.
  • Cleaning logs should be accessible to staff.
  • The practice should record patient information within significant events.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice