- GP practice
Dr Manjit Singh
Assessment report published 25 June 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 8 May 2026 to 12 May 2026. Dr Manjit Singh also known as Cambridge Street surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to 3,533 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 45.02% of patients are White, 36.38% Asian, 9.18% Black, 5.41% Other and 4.01% Mixed. 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.
SAFE: We found the service were unable to demonstrate they had a good learning culture. We found limited evidence that incidents and significant events were used to manage risks and improve learning. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean, however there was no evidence to demonstrate that health and safety processes were regularly reviewed to mitigate risks. Managers made sure staff received training, however we identified gaps in clinical staff updates in relation to safeguarding. Regular appraisals were in place and there was an induction process tailored to the individual person, however we found that not all staff had completed the induction. Staff managed some medicines well, but we identified a number of patients who were overdue monitoring and medicine reviews.
EFFECTIVE: Our review of clinical records did not assure us that care was based on the latest clinical guidance. We found that some patients with long term conditions were not monitored appropriately and the ongoing management of patients was not in line with NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guidance. We were unable to gain assurances that there were systems and processes in place to enable information to be shared between the provider and services to ensure continuity of care. The practice had completed some clinical audits aimed at driving continuous improvement, however we were unable to gain assurances that these were being used to improve patient care and operational efficiency.
CARING: 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.
RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. We found limited evidence to demonstrate that patient feedback was used to improve services and share learning. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.
WELL-LED: The practice was unable to demonstrate they had effective leadership in place to ensure governance systems were fully embedded. We identified learning from incidents and complaints was not used effectively to improve patient satisfaction and mitigate future risks. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. We found there was minimal evidence of a culture of continuous improvement
We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and 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. There was a patient participation group (PPG), however we were told that there had been 1 meeting in the past 12 months and there were no minutes to demonstrate what had been discussed. Following the onsite assessment, we received minutes of a PPG meeting that had been held in July 2025, however the last minutes of PPG meeting on the practice website were from 2015, there were no other minutes available. The practice website detailed how to join the PPG, but we found when speaking with patients on the day of the onsite assessment they were not aware that a group was in place or how to join if they were interested.