During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 23 – 25 June 2025. The Longcroft Clinic is a GP practice and delivers services to around 10,400 patients under a contract held with NHS England.
We carried out a comprehensive assessment because of the service’s aged rating and we reviewed all quality statements.
The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 85% White and 6% Asian, and 9% Black, or originating from mixed or other ethnic groups. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 10 decile (10 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.
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, and experience. Managers made sure staff received regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. We were not assured of effective shared learning within the service. Some staff lacked adequate time for training including safeguarding or had not been trained to the appropriate levels required for their roles as required in the practice’s mandatory training policy.
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.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences.
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 worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment.
Leaders and managers lacked effective oversight for providing well led services. Some governance systems were ineffective, limiting partner insight. During the assessment we identified concerns in training, central complaint recording, shared learning, and policy accuracy which leaders in the service were not aware of. While immediate issues were addressed, sustained learning was not supported. Risk assessment action plans were often inaccessible, or undocumented. Staff feedback was mixed and the providers speak-up processes were not embedded.
Overall, the practice is rated as good. The key questions safe, effective, caring and responsive are rated as good but with requires improvement in well-led.
We found a breach of regulation in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.