Park Royal Medical Practice

Date of Assessment: 28/04/26 to 30/04/26. Park Royal Medical Practice is a GP practice, delivering services to 8,860 registered patients under an Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles show that the practice has a relatively high proportion of working age patients and is ethnically diverse. 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.

This assessment was a focused assessment to review a breach of Regulation 19 (Fit and proper persons employed), and the following 4 quality statements: Safe effective staffing; Monitoring outcomes; Freedom to speak up; and Governance, management, and sustainability.

SAFE: The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Staff understood and managed risks. 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.

EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

WELL-LED: Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were notified of the outcomes and actions taken in response to their comments. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement.

Since the last inspection, the practice had made improvements and is no longer in breach of Regulation 19 (Fit and proper persons employed).

Date of Assessment: 06/03/25 to 11/03/25. Park Royal Medical Practice is a GP practice, delivering services to 9,000 registered patients under an Alternative Provider Medical Services (APMS) contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles show that the practice has a relatively high proportion of working age patients and is ethnically diverse. 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.

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. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. There were enough staff with the right skills and experience, however we identified shortfalls in the recruitment procedures and monitoring of training for locum staff.

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 between services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. 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 listening, learning and trust. Leaders were knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback but were not always notified of the outcomes and actions taken in response to their comments. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities; however, some staff were unclear on the roles and responsibilities of the senior leadership team. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

Since the last inspection, the practice had made improvements to medicines management and is no longer in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment). However, we found a breach of Regulation 19 (Fit and proper persons employed). We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.