Sacriston Medical Centre

Updated 20 November 2025

Date of Assessment: 12th June to 17th June 2026. Sacriston Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to 10,692 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the practice has higher than national or regional averages of patients aged between 50-60 years old for both male and females. The practice also has a 2.6% non-white cohort of patients. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 4th decile (4 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 provider, the context the provider was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The provider had a formalised 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. 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 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 provider supported staff wellbeing.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The provider produced information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the provider took it seriously and acted on it. The provider had issues regarding access but continued to try to address them and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The provider 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 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 to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas.

Updated 20 November 2025

People were generally 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. The National GP Patient Survey at the time of the assessment, saw 79% of respondents state they had a ‘Good’ overall experience of the practice, which was above the national average of 75%. The NHS Friends and Family Test for May 2026 saw an 83% very positive response rate for the practice. During the assessment the CQC received patient feedback via our ‘Give feedback on care’ online form and received 203 responses with 85% of these being positive responses.

There was a small patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service, but they acknowledged this and were keen to expand. For example, they sent invitations out to join via the NHS app. Representatives from the PPG described how managers rarely shared information regarding the work the of the practice. The PPG told us that ‘[Sacriston was] a very good practice with great medical practitioners and admin staff who work hard to be helpful’. However, they told us were concerned about the lack of proper engagement and transparency with leadership and felt they were a ‘tick box exercise’ only. The PPG told us the practice did not always implement their suggestions. This included for example, having name badges for reception staff. Which was raised directly also staff members who were receptive but ultimately no action was taken.