The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Westbury Medical Centre

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Westbury, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY5 9QX (01743) 884727

Provided and run by:
Westbury Medical Centre

Important:

We served 2 warning notices on Westbury Medical Centre on 10 February 2026 for failing to meet the regulations related to safe care and treatment and good governance at Westbury Medical Centre.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 9 January 2026 to 14 April 26. Westbury Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 2,681 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 96.9% White, 1.58% Asian, 0.2% Mixed, 0.1% Black and 0.2% other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 6th decile (6 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.

At the last inspection in November 2017, we rated the practice as good overall, and good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. At this inspection we have rated the practice requires improvement overall, requires improvement for providing safe, effective and well-led services and good for providing caring and responsive services.

This announced comprehensive inspection was carried out due to the length of time since the last inspection and in response to information of concern we had received.

SAFE: The practice had processes in place to report unintended or unexpected events; however, these were not effective for improving patient care and records were not well maintained. There were no effective or well-established systems in place to manage risks, including those relating to infection, prevention and control. Environmental risks had not always been identified, or action promptly taken to ensure the safety of people using the service and staff. Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff who had received training for their role. Not all staff had completed essential training or had received an induction or training appropriate to their role. Staff did not manage medicines safely, including controlled drugs.

.

EFFECTIVE: People were not always involved in assessments of their needs. Staff did not always review assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was not always based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with agencies involved in people’s care to improve outcomes. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

CARING: 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.

RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. People were mainly involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

WELL-LED: Governance processes were not effective or fully embedded into practice in identifying or addressing risk or areas for improvement in addition to general record keeping. Policies and procedures were not easily accessible to staff, regularly reviewed or specific to inform practice. Meetings were held to share information across the team. However, not all staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders and staff did not have a documented shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Staff where not always supported to develop in their roles. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was not a culture of continuous improvement, and learning opportunities were missed.

We found breaches of regulation and served 2 warning notices on Westbury Medical Centre for failing to meet the regulations related to safe care and treatment and good governance. Following the assessment the provider sent us an action plan in response addressing the concerns detailed in the warning notices.

21 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection November 2014 – Rated Requires improvement overall).

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Westbury Medical Centre on 21 November 2017. As part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.

  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.

  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Date the policies recently reviewed and note an indicative date for the next review.

  • Implement a systematic approach to patient consent in respect of minor surgical procedures.

  • Make available to complainants information about the next steps to take following any complaint investigation.

  • Consider suitable delegation and document any division of responsibilities and governance processes to enable appropriate continuance.

  • Continue to action areas identified for improvement in the infection prevention and control audit.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

27 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Westbury Medical Centre on 27 November 2014. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Specifically, we found the practice to require improvement for providing safe and well led services. It also required improvement for providing services for older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). It was good for providing effective, caring and responsive services.

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

  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance.
  • Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned for.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they did not always find it easy to make an appointment with a named GP, however they told us that there was continuity of care with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

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

Importantly the provider must:

  • Ensure that non-clinical staff who are involved in the direct care of patients such as chaperone duties have been risk assessed to determine if a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check is required.
  • Ensure that practice nurses who carry out patient medication reviews have the appropriate clinical skills and therapeutic knowledge.

In addition the provider should:

  • Maintain records of meetings to clearly demonstrate the discussions and actions taken to address safety incidents over the long term.
  • Review the mechanisms in place to seek feedback from staff and patients, including the introduction of a Patient Participation Group.
  • Introduce a formal method that allows all staff to report and record incidents in a timely manner.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

26 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six patients during our inspection. All of them were generally pleased with the service they received from the surgery. One patient told us, 'You can't say anything bad about the place'. Another patient said, 'The doctors are always good here'. Two patients told us that it was sometimes difficult to make an appointment with the particular doctor they wanted to see.

We saw that the provider had procedures in place to help protect patients' privacy and dignity. The staff we spoke with were familiar with the procedures. None of the patients we spoke with had any concerns in this area.

We found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that met patients' needs and protected their rights. Patients were involved in decisions about their treatment.

Patients received their treatment in a clean, hygienic environment. The provider had suitable arrangements in place to ensure patients were not placed at risk of cross infection. However we did find some out of date equipment and dressings stored in a treatment room.

We saw that the provider carried out a range of audits on a regular basis to monitor the quality of its own performance and to learn from any mistakes made. The provider had a small but effective patient participation group.