The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Bridge Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

8 Evesham Road, Headless Cross, Redditch, Worcestershire, B97 4LA 0844 477 1758

Provided and run by:
The Bridge Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 14 September 2026. The Bridge Surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 5,500 people under a contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 90.9% White, 5.0% Asian, 2.4% Mixed, 1.1% Black and 0.6% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 7th decile (7 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.

This was a focused assessment. We undertook this assessment due to the length of time since our last assessment. We assessed 10 quality statements from across all 5 key questions. 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.

Staff kept facilities clean but did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. There were gaps identified in the recruitment and training processes, but the practice had provided assurances following the visit to address these concerns.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes.

Staff were kind and showed empathy and compassion towards people and respected their privacy and dignity.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. The practice was also working collaboratively with others to improve their access. Leaders and staff were aware of inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers.

The service had a vision and strategy, which considered the needs of the people who used their service and the wider community. Staff understood their individual roles and responsibilities. However, the service did not always have robust governance arrangements in place to monitor risk and compliance. The practice had provided assurances following the visit to address these concerns.

08/07/2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a focussed inspection at The Bridge Surgery following an Annual Regulatory Review of the practice. During this inspection we looked at safe, effective and well-led. The practice was previously inspected in 2016 and rated good.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

•what we found when we inspected

•information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and

•information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for each of the population groups.

•The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.

•Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.

•Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.

•The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.

•The practice had a focus on learning and improvement.

•The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

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

The provider should:

•Take action so the practice team know who the leads are for specific areas of work such as safeguarding.

•Take action so that minutes of meetings are documented in order to provide a record of discussions.

•Review their procedure for two week wait cancer referral as a coding error was identified.

•Keep an overview of significant events to enable effective trend analysis.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

7 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Bridge Surgery on 7 September 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded. Significant events were investigated and acted on when necessary. However, senior staff were not always circulating clinical significant events to all relevant staff and conducting reviews of them to identify trends or if further action was required.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed. Safe systems were in place for prescribing medicines. Clinical staff processes ensured that patients received safe and appropriate care and this was clearly documented.

  • Staffing levels were monitored to ensure they matched patients’ needs. Safe arrangements were in place for staff recruitment that protected patients from risks of harm. The practice manager had been absent from the practice for over 3 months and would not be returning. Senior staff informed us they would make arrangements to commence recruitment for a replacement.

  • Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training had been identified and planned to enhance their skills and patient care.

  • Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their treatment. They said they were satisfied with standards of care they received.

  • Telephone appointments were available as well as face to face for the same day. Patients spoken with were not aware they could pre-book appointments. At the time of our inspection the practice did not have an active online service for patients to book appointments however; this was put in place one week afterwards.

  • Information about how to make a complaint was readily available and easy to understand. Complaints were dealt with in a timely way and appropriately.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to assess and treat patients.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us they felt well supported by senior staff. Management proactively sought feedback from patients which it acted on.

  • The practice had been working closely with another local practice to promote on-going improvements in patient care. Collaboration working with other local practices was in place with the aim developing ways of meeting future service demands.

However, there was an area of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Ensure that significant events are cascaded to all relevant staff, regularly reviewed and where trends are identified determine whether further actions are required to prevent similar events from occurring.

  • Monitor the recently introduced system for booking online appointments to ensure it is working effectively.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice