Naseby Medical Centre

Ratings

• Overall

  Inadequate

• Safe

  Inadequate

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Requires improvement

• Responsive

  Requires improvement

• Well-led

  Inadequate

Our view of the service

Date of Inspection: 16 January 2026 to 7 February 2026. Naseby Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to 5,500 people under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the practice population is 59.8% Asian, 20.8% White, 10.3% Black, 3.4% Mixed and 5.8% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1st decile (1 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This inspection 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.

On 7 August 2025 the Care Quality Commission (CQC) urgently suspended the registration of Naseby Medical Centre in response to serious concerns identified during an inspection in July and August 2025. As a result of these concerns we took urgent action to protect the safety and welfare of people using this service. Under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 we imposed a temporary suspension of six months on the registration of the provider in respect of the following activities: Diagnostic and screening procedures, Maternity and midwifery services and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

We carried out a focused assessment to establish if the provider, Naseby Medical Centre could resume the delivery of regulated activities or the suspension must be extended further.

We identified that whilst the provider had made some progress towards rectifying the serious concerns the CQC had identified, the provider was unable to demonstrate that effective governance arrangements would be implemented to manage risks, performance and deliver safe care to patients who used the service.

The leadership team did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the serious clinical safety and governance failings previously identified, nor had they embedded learning or engaged meaningfully with the caretaker provider to ensure a safe transition of services. Policies had been drafted but not implemented, environmental risks were not effectively managed, and concerns about staff competence and unsuitable staffing plans remained.

There was no assurance of effective systems for managing long‑term conditions, medication reviews, high‑risk medicines, or accurate clinical record‑keeping. Leaders had not reflected on the impact of previous poor‑quality, non‑person‑centred care, and improvement planning remained limited and reactive. While some late actions were taken, they did not provide confidence that safe, well‑governed care could be delivered. Ongoing significant risks led to the suspension of registration being extended for a further three months.