During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 23 June 2026 to 25 June 2026. Leander Family Practice is a GP practice and delivers service to 9335 under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic makeup of the patient population is 27.9% White, 30.3%% Asian, 29.9% Black 7% Mixed and 4.9% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 5th decile (5 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.
Leander Family Practice is located at 949 London Road Thornton Heath
Surrey CR7 6JE.
The practice operates from a purpose-built property with patient facilities including reception and waiting areas on the ground floors. The practice has access to 9 consultation rooms on the ground floor.
The premises are wheelchair accessible and there are facilities for wheelchair users including an accessible toilet, the practice has a hearing loop.
The practice clinical team consists of 3 GP partners, 3 salaried GPs, 2 practice nurses, one assistant practitioner and one healthcare assistant. The GPs are supported by a practice manager, finance manager, and 11 reception/administration staff.
The practice is a training practice, and they had one GP student at the time of the inspection.
We carried out this assessment due to the length of time since the last comprehensive inspection.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Most risks were well managed, so people were protected and kept safe. However, there were some areas of risk that had not been effectively addressed at the time of our assessment. For example, staff recruitment procedures, were not always safe and effective. 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.
Most people were involved in assessments of their needs, however we did identify some areas for improvement. For example, some patients requiring medication reviews did not have them. Patients with long term conditions were not always monitored adequately. However once this was raised the practice made changes. 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. Where patients didn’t have capacity, and staff took decisions about the patient’s care in their best interest, they involved those people who were important to the patient in the decision.
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. 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.
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.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to Regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.