- GP practice
Atrium Health Centre
We served warning notices on Atrium Health Centre on 5 June 2026 for failing to meet regulations related to safe care and treatment, premises and equipment and good governance.
Assessment report published 30 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 19 May to 26 May 2026. Atrium Health Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 6,600 people under a contract held with NHS England. The service also has a branch site, known as Crossways Surgery. The National General Practice Profiles states the service population includes a relatively high proportion of older people, particularly those aged 60 years and over, compared with the national profile. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the service population group is in the 7th decile (7 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service 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 was a comprehensive assessment covering all key questions in safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We inspected this service because the age of the rating and also in response to information of concern.
The service did not maintain appropriate standards of hygiene and cleanliness within the premises, and there was no effective oversight to demonstrate cleaning schedules were being followed by contracted cleaning staff. Staining on carpets and soft furnishings was visible, and the service was unable to provide evidence of deep cleaning or risk assessments to mitigate associated risks. Whilst the service had identified actions required around the premises and recorded these as high risk, appropriate action had not been taken to mitigate or rectify the issues. Previous fire risk assessments had identified areas of risk; however, these had not been addressed in a timely way. As a result, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) made a referral to the fire service following the onsite visit. The service had also not done all that was reasonably practicable to mitigate the risk of infection prevention and control (IPC), including ensuring adequate hand hygiene materials were available throughout the premises. Medicines and equipment were not always appropriately risk assessed, and stock monitoring was not effective.
Whilst people were involved in assessments of their needs, and staff supported them to understand their care and treatment, the service was not always following national guidance in relation to monitoring long-term conditions. Whilst no evidence of harm was found, the service's recall systems were not fully effective in ensuring people received recommended reviews, monitoring and follow-up care for some long-term health conditions in line with national guidance. The service also did not always effectively monitor outcomes or use performance data to drive improvement. Uptake of cervical screening and some childhood immunisation programmes remained below national targets, and there was limited evidence that targeted actions had been implemented, monitored or reviewed to improve uptake. Information relating to some care and treatment decisions, including Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions, was not always accurately recorded.
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 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. However, data from the National GP Patient Survey results and feedback reviewed during the assessment indicated that people did not always have access to their preferred healthcare professional, and satisfaction with some aspects of their experience of care had reduced compared with the previous year.
Leaders and staff based at the service had a shared vision and culture based on listening and trust. However, staff felt senior leaders, such as the registered partners, were not always visible in the service or available in a timely way. Whilst there were some leaders onsite within the service, other leadership roles were based off-site and worked remotely. Some staff were unable to identify their Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. Roles were not always fully understood by staff, and training was not always provided to support these responsibilities. Systems used by the provider to assess, monitor and improve the safety of the service were not always effective. Whilst governance was managed remotely by a third-party organisation, staff felt issues raised were not addressed in a timely manner or in some cases were not responded to. There was limited opportunity for learning, innovation and improvement at the service.
We identified 4 breaches of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, premises and equipment, good governance, and staffing. In instances where CQC has decided to take civil enforcement action against the provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded. We have also asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
Whilst people expressed general satisfaction with their care and treatment, our assessment identified areas where the service did not always meet the expected standards.
People were generally positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey and feedback received by the service through the April 2026 NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) indicated that people were satisfied with the service. FFT feedback described staff as kind, caring and knowledgeable. People also reported receiving thorough assessments, clear explanations and feeling listened to. Feedback also highlighted concerns relating to appointment communication, cancelled appointments, late-running clinics and understanding the purpose or appropriateness of appointments. The provider confirmed it was aware of these issues and had an action plan to address them.
Since the assessment, the 2026 National GP Patient Survey results have been published. These showed an improvement in people's overall experience of the service, with 73% of respondents reporting a positive overall experience of their GP practice, compared with 69% in 2025. However, this remained below the national average of 75%.