- GP practice
Clement Road Medical Practice
Assessment report published 28 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 13 August 2026 to 18 August 2026. Clement Road Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers services to 5873 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 74.42% of patients registered are White, 14.23% are Asian, 4.23% are Black, 4.25% are Mixed and 2.87% are Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the fourth 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.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents and 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 other practices within the Primary Care Network to ensure the best outcomes for patients. 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 service supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. 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. Feedback from patients was mixed about accessing the service provided and this was also reflected in the results of the GP National Patient Survey. The practice kept access under review and had recently recruited additional staff to support telephone access. 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.
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on safety, excellence, learning and compassion. 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 other practices within the Primary Care Network (PCN) 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
Feedback from people was mixed about the quality of their care and treatment. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey showed people were generally satisfied with the practice, however telephone access was identified as an area of improvement, with only 39% of respondents finding it easy to get through to the provider by phone. This was below the local average of 53% and the national average of 57%. The practice was aware of this issue and had recruited additional resources to improve telephone access and responsiveness. Leaders demonstrated an understanding of the pressures affecting patient access and were taking steps to ensure resources were deployed effectively to meet patient demand and improve the overall patient experience.
At the time of our assessment, there was no active Patient Participation Group (PPG) due to limited engagement despite the practice's efforts to recruit members. The practice recognised the value of patient involvement and was taking steps to re-establish the group to help ensure the views and experiences of people using the service were represented.