- GP practice
Brigstock Medical Centre Also known as Brigstock and South Norwood Partnership
Assessment report published 10 June 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 24 March 2025 to 25 March 2025. Brigstock Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to 13886 under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 32.91% are Black, 23.74% Asian, 30.81% White, 7.68% Mixed, and4.85% Other 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 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: 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. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers generally made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care, although some staff had not completed safeguarding training to the recommended level. Staff managed medicines and involved people in planning any changes. However, improvements could have been made with regards to the management of patients on high risk medication to ensure reviews were carried out in a timely way. On the day of the site visit we did identify that some staff members did not have necessary recruitment checks and proof of immunisations, however shortly after the inspection the practice updated their system and provided proof.
EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. The management of patients with long-terms conditions was good, although improvements could be made with the management of patients with diabetes. 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.
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. 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.
WELL-LED: 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. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.
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. The practice told us that despite their efforts the Patient Participation Group (PPG) was not very active, and we were unable to get feedback from the group as part of the assessment. Staff told us that they were actively working with the local Healthwatch to see if they could engage more patients in the PPG.
We asked the practice to share details on the practice website of CQC Give Feedback on Care process. Give Feedback on Care allows patients to comment directly to CQC on the care they have received. We received 8 positive comments and 2 negative comments from patients via Give Feedback on Care forms.