• Doctor
  • GP practice

Limestone Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Cross Street Health Centre, Cross Street, Dudley, West Midlands, DY1 1RN (01384) 459044

Provided and run by:
Limestone Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 9 April to 14 April 2026. Limestone Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to 4704 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles reported on the ethnicity of the practice population as, 71% White, 16.7% Asian, 6.3% Black, 4% Mixed and 2% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the first decile (1 out 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.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. 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 were involved in assessments of their needs. 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. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

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.

25 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cross Street Health Centre on 25 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • We observed a strong patient-centred culture and we saw that staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained confidentiality. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice offered a range of clinical services which included care for long term conditions and services were planned and delivered to take into account the needs of different patient groups to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.
  • The practice was proactive in identifying and managing significant events. Opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
  • Performance data across some areas was below average, including uptake for cervical screening and for identifying and supporting patients who would benefit from smoking cessation advice.
  • The practice had identified the need to take a more proactive approach in managing medication reviews. During our inspection we saw data to demonstrate that some improvements had been made in this area and that an ongoing piece of work was in place to ensure that regular reviews were taking place as appropriate.
  • All patients who were registered with the practice had a named GP and patients could access appointments and services in a way and at a time that suited them.
  • Staff spoken with demonstrated a commitment to providing a high quality service and throughout our inspection we noticed a theme of positive feedback from staff.
  • There was a systematic approach to working with other organisations to improve patient care and outcomes. The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • A programme of continuous clinical and internal audit was used to monitor quality and to make improvements.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group.

We saw an area of outstanding practice:

  • Approximately 39% of the practice population were non-English speaking patients. We saw how the practice had started to utilise a local Integrated Plus scheme to specifically support their non-English speaking patients. As a result, these patients were supported in a variety of ways such as signposting them to befriending services used by others who did not have English as a first language. These patients were helped to use public transport in order to attend appointments in secondary care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to identify carers and ensure that all carers are captured on the computer system, in order to provide further support where needed.
  • Continue to explore ways to engage with patients who do not attend for cervical screening, in order to ensure screening is taking place as appropriate and improve uptake.
  • Continue to engage with patients and work on improving overall medication reviews and ensure that regular reviews are taking place as appropriate.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

24 September 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection we spoke with seven patients and five members of staff. One patient said, 'They are very good, smashing doctor." The patients we spoke with said they were unable to obtain appointments at a time to suit their needs and that they had to wait a long time once they arrived at the practice. However, all the patients we spoke with said they felt the quality of care they received was good and they never felt rushed.

We saw that patient's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect. One patient told us, 'The doctors are very helpful and supportive." We saw that patients experienced care and treatment that met their needs. Patients told us and we saw that care was delivered in a clean environment.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and were aware of whom to report concerns to.

There were good systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received.