The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Pontesbury & Worthen Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Hall Bank, Pontesbury, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY5 0RF (01743) 790325

Provided and run by:
Pontesbury & Worthen Medical Practice

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

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 11 November 2025 to 25 November 2025. Pontesbury Worthen Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers a service to 10442 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The practice has a branch surgery situated at Worthen. The National General Practice Profiles states that the patient ethnicity profile is made up of 97.74% White,0.88% Asian, 0.02% Black,1.2% Mixed and 0.16% other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 8th decile (8 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 learning culture and people could raise concerns; however procedures were not consistently followed when reporting dispensing errors and near-misses. Managers investigated incidents and complaints. Overall, staff understood and managed risks, some issues were identified in relation to fire safety at the branch surgery. 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 however, not all staff had been recruited safely. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Some shortfalls were identified in how staff managed medicines.

EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was mainly 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 and took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

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 did not always supply up-to-date information. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. Not all patients found it easy to access the service. 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.

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 felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Governance processes in relation to medicines management and staff recruitment practices were not always effective or fully embedded into practice. 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.

This inspection was announced and carried out due to the length of time since the last inspection in 2016 and a merger of the 2 practices in 2021.

We found breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

20 September 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Pontesbury Medical Practice on 3 March 2016. After the comprehensive inspection, the practice was rated as good overall with requires improvement in providing safe services. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Pontesbury Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk. We undertook a focussed follow up inspection on 20 September 2016 to check that improvements had been made. The practice is rated as good for providing safe services and rated good overall.

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

  • Patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • General health and safety risk assessments had been completed, this included fire exits and maintenance records of all equipment including the wheelchair.
  • Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment. Training included a documented induction system and safeguarding adults and children to the appropriate levels as well as basic life support.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice ensured their recruitment arrangements included Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were completed for staff who had contact with potentially vulnerable patients and staff references recorded.
  • Staff who provide a chaperone service were in receipt of chaperone training and had a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check completed.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff including annual appraisals and patients, which it acted on.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

3 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Pontesbury Medical Practice on 3 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.

  • All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised but not always as well documented as acted upon.

  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. The practice recognised the value of patient care over and above ensuring they achieved good Quality and Outcome Framework (QOF) results and they choose to maintain some former QOF requirements to ensure they captured all the quality aspects of the service they provided.

  • Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive.

  • The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they met patients’ needs.

  • The practice had a ‘Young Person Friendly Award’ and could see young people at school on short notice following a call from the school nurse. The practice welcomed young people and provided specific information for young people on the practice website and on the notice boards.

  • 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. Examples included: arranging a dispensary home delivery service which included house bound patients.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.

  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.

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

  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

There were areas of practice where the provider must make improvements;

  • Ensure Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are completed for staff who have contact with potentially vulnerable patients and complete a risk assessment until these are returned.

There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Consider the completion of general health and safety risk assessments.

  • Ensure that the wheelchairs for patient use have a record maintained of the annual maintenance checks completed.

  • Consider risk assessing the three fire exits with three large steps in order to demonstrate how the practice would get all patients safely to the meeting point.

  • Document verbal references and maintain this within the staff member’s personnel record.

  • Consider the implementation of a documented staff induction system, signed and dated by staff on completion.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice