The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Wargrave House Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

23 St Owen Street, Hereford, Herefordshire, HR1 2JB (01432) 272285

Provided and run by:
Wargrave House Surgery

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 10 November 2025 to 11 November 2025. Wargrave House Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 8,300 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states the practice population is 95.43% White, 2.06% Asian, 0.50% Black, 1.22% Mixed and 0.79% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 7th decile (7 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. We assessed all five key questions to establish if the services provided are safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

1 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Wargrave House Surgery on 1 November 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 including lessons learned.

  • Safe arrangements were in place for staff recruitment that protected patients from risks of harm. The numbers of staff were regularly reviewed to enable them to meet patients’ needs. The practice manager left in July 2016 and senior staff were in the process of recruiting. The assistant practice manager was fulfilling the role temporarily.

  • There were on-going arrangements were in place to protect patients and others from unnecessary infections.

  • 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 had been encouraged and planned.

  • Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their treatment.

  • Senior staff had responded to the previous results of the National Patient Survey regarding access for appointments. A new appointment system was introduced in May 2016 and this was being monitored for effectiveness. All patients who requested same day appointments were triaged to ensure they received appropriate and timely care.

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

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

  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

23 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with seven patients during our inspection. They were all very complimentary about the service they received at the surgery. Patients described the service as, 'Excellent', 'Very good' and, 'Absolutely fine'.

We saw that patients' views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and that they were treated with dignity and respect.

The surgery was based over two floors of a large listed high street building. The provider had created ramped access at the rear of the building and patients with mobility difficulties could choose to be treated on the ground floor.

The surgery looked clean and we saw that there were good processes in place to minimise the risk of cross infection.

We were satisfied that the provider made all the appropriate checks on staff before their full employment started. The practice manager regularly checked to ensure that healthcare professionals employed at the surgery were correctly registered with their appropriate professional body.

The surgery had a well-publicised complaints system and we saw that complaints were dealt with appropriately.