The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Little London Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Little London, Caldmore, Walsall, West Midlands, WS1 3EP (01922) 628280

Provided and run by:
Little London Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 18 March 2026. Little London Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to 9546 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 50.7% of patients are Asian, 35.2% are White, 6.7% are Black, 3.9% are other, and 3.4% are mixed. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 1st decile (1 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.

SAFE: The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Incidents were investigated by managers and any learning shared with staff. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. We saw that equipment was maintained and any potential risks reduced. There were enough staff with the right skills and experience. Managers ensured staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain a high standard of care. Medicines were managed well and where there were changes to people’s medicines they were involved.

EFFECTIVE: People were involved in the assessments of their needs. Reviews took 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 ensured people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people, so where people did not have capacity decisions would be made in their best interests.

CARING: People’s privacy and dignity were protected and staff treated people with kindness and compassion, ensuring their preferences were met. People’s choices were respected when during any care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information that people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and the provider acted on any feedback they received. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through the training staff received and any feedback patients shared. People were involved in planning their care and the service ensured people had the appropriate information to understand their options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

WELL-LED: 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 told us they felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Managers and staff worked within the community to ensure the best possible care to people and were receptive to ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement.

8 September 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a focussed inspection at Little London Surgery on 8 September 2016.

The practice had previously been inspected in November 2015 and was rated as requires improvement for providing safe services and good for responsive. At this time we identitied a breach of regulation around safe care and treatment. This was because the provider did not keep records to reflect the appropriate management of the cold chain (the safe storage and handling of vaccinations). Additionally, records were not in place to support that risk was effectively managed in the absence of disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks for staff and for specific risks associated with health, safety and infection control. During the previous inspection the practice had not reviewed the 2015 national GP patient servey in order to consider whether improvements were needed to improve patients’ experience of the service.

Following the inspection the practice sent us an action plan detailing the actions they were going to take to improve.

We carried out a focused inspection to check whether the provider had made improvements in line with our recommendations and to ensure regulations are now met. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Little London Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We found that during our inspection on 8 September 2016, the practice had improved systems and we found the following key findings:

  • The practice had established systems and processes to keep patients safe.
  • Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. There were effective systems in place to alert the practice when training updates were required.

  • Risks associated with health, safety and infection control were effectively assessed and well managed. There were adequate arrangements in place to respond to emergencies and major incidents.

  • The practice had systems in place to effectively monitor and audit their processes, including patient correspondence and risk management systems

  • The practice had proactively sought patient feedback via patient surveys, and findings had been acted on. The national GP patient survey published 7 July 2016 showed slight improvements in some areas of patient access however were still below local and national averages.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

24 November 2015 and 1 December 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Little London Surgery on 24 November 2015 and 1 December 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to require improvement for providing safe and effective services. We found the practice to be rated good for providing caring, effective, responsive and well led services.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise safety concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Risks to patients were assessed and managed, with the exception of the system for monitoring the temperature of vaccinations, risks associated with staff who do not have a disclosure and barring service (DBS) check in place, legionella and fire. 

  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they had confidence and trust in the GPs and nurses.

  • The practice was responsive to the needs of its local population and services were planned and delivered to take into account the needs of different patient groups. Access to routine appointments and getting through to the practice by telephone were areas for ongoing improvement which the practice had identified and were addressing.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

However, there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Have robust governance systems in place for the management of risks to patients and others against inappropriate or unsafe care. This must include assessing and managing risks in relation to the storage of vaccines, legionella and fire safety.

  • Carry out a risk assessment for all staff who undertake chaperoning duties in the absence of a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review the results of the 2015 national GP patient survey and consider whether improvements are needed to improve patients’ experience of the service.

  • Develop system to monitor and record staff training and recruitment records so that training needs and updates can be easily identified and acted on.

  • Consider the availability of emergency drugs.

Should continue to audit the system in place for reviewing correspondence relating to patients care and treatment and for assurance that patients who required a follow up of their blood test had received one.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

24 February 2014

During a routine inspection

The visit to the practice was announced 48 hours in advance of the inspection. This was to ensure we had the opportunity to speak to the GPs and staff working at the practice. We visited the practice to establish that the needs of patients using the service were being met. During the inspection process we spoke with 22 patients, three staff members, two GPs and the practice manager.

Generally the patients we spoke with were complimentary about the service provided by the administration and reception staff. Patient's voiced concerns about the appointment system. We saw from minutes of meetings that work was underway to identify ways of improving the system. A new telephone and triage system was being introduced in March 2014.

Most of the patients told us that they received care, treatment and support that met their needs, particularly when they saw their preferred GPs. We found that most patients had a preference to which GP they saw. One patient said: 'The doctors listen to me. They asked about my history asked how I was getting on. They gave me advice regarding exercise and an exercise sheet'.

Patients were invited to comment on the quality of the service through the national patients' satisfaction survey, the complaints procedure and a suggestion box. There was a patient participation groups (PPGs) working with the practice to continue to improve the service provided to patients.