Updated 1 October 2025
Date of Assessment: Remote clinical searches were carried out on 29 April 2026 and the site visit took place on 30 April 2026.
St John’s Wood Medical Practice is a GP Practice registered as a partnership since its CQC registration in April 2013. The practice was last assessed in August 2017. This comprehensive assessment was undertaken because of the length of time since the last assessment and the information of concern made available to CQC related to patient care.
St John’s Wood Medical Practice is a GP Practice that delivers General Medical Service (GMS) to approximately 24,423 patients in the London Borough of Westminster under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profile stated that the population make up for this location is 56.5% White, 18.8% Asian, 5.5% Black, 5.8%% Mixed and 13.3% other non-white ethnic groups.
Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population is in the 8th decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This practice is in the eighth decile indicating it is in a less deprived area on the national scale. 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 assessment process findings are as follows:
Safe: There were concerns with how people and staff were kept safe and protected from harm and abuse. The practice recorded significant events and shared learning with staff to support ongoing improvement. Most risks were understood and managed appropriately by the team. However, the safeguarding policy was not specific to the practice and not all household members were coded on the safeguarding register. There was also no evidence that routine audits of emergency medicines and emergency equipment were carried out. In addition, there were gaps in staff training and in monitoring the safety of the environment. For example, current fire safety and legionella risk assessments were only provided to CQC after the site visit.
Effective: People were involved in the assessment of their needs. Patients were invited for their health checks reviews. The practice generally delivered services in line with good practice but not all guidelines were always followed, for example, acting on the guidance for consent when healthcare assistants (HCAs) administer vaccines to patients. The practice worked with relevant stakeholders to achieve best outcomes for the patient population. Information was shared with the patients to ensure they made an informed decision about their health care needs. There was a system of recall for cervical screening and childhood immunisations among the patient population who did not engage with the health offers; however, the impact of the system of recall was not yet known.
Caring: People were treated with kindness and compassion by the clinical staff. The dignity and privacy of patients were respected. Staff felt valued and appreciated. Staff wellbeing was treated with the utmost importance by the service.
Responsive: People received services that were in line with the Equality Act. Interpreting services were made available to patients who needed them. Complaints were handled appropriately and in a timely manner.
Well-led: The leadership and the management of the practice operated an open-door policy and shared vision of the practice with the staff. The leadership and management had a clear understanding of equality, human rights and safe compassionate care. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and felt supported. However, there were gaps in governance and oversight arrangements. In particular, there was insufficient monitoring of maintenance checks undertaken by the building owner, and a lack of formal auditing of emergency medicines and emergency equipment within the practice.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment (Regulation 12) and good governance (Regulation 17). We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.