- GP practice
Newport Medical Group
Assessment report published 20 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Newport Medical group is a GP practice with branch locations in proximity and delivers service to 13305 under a contract held with NHS England. There is also a private circumcision service based on the premises. we assessed both the GP and circumcision service.
The main surgery is located at 34 Grantham Rd, Sparkbrook, Birmingham B11 1LU and branch surgeries at 234 Stoney Lane, Sparkbrook, Birmingham B12 8AW and 1 Newport Road B12 8QE. During the inspection we visited Grantham Road and Stoney Lane. Newport Road Surgery was closed for maintenance at the time in agreement with the Integrated Care Board (ICB).
The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 18 White, 57% Asian, 3% Mixed, 9% Black and 10% other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1st decile (1of 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.
We carried out an announced comprehensive assessment of all 5 key questions (Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led). Remote clinical searches were carried out on 18 February 2026 and the site visits were on 23rd and 24th February 2026.
People were not always protected or kept. 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 could raise concerns.
However, we found areas of concern around the how the circumcision clinic was operated. Children attending for circumcision were not weighed at the clinic prior to the procedure taking place, which needed in order to calculate a safe dose of local anesthetic.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs.. 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. Staff involved those important to people to take decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. There were some variations with how the practice’s rates compared with national rates of immunisation of children under 5. However, the provider was able to demonstrate that they were proactive in encouraging parents and guardians to attend these appointments through messages and telephone calls.
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. However, managers did not always ensure that risks were identified and mitigated effectively. Systems to ensure safety and data protection were not effective to ensure confidentiality, risk mitigation and effective oversight. We identified shortfalls in governance oversight by leaders including areas of data protection, staff competency and adhering to good practice. These issues collectively demonstrate ineffective systems to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people using the service.
We found a breach of regulation in relation to good governance (Regulation 17). We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were satisfied with the service. There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. A representative from the PPG described how managers made positive changes because of feedback, and made reasonable adjustments for patients who found it hard to access the premises.