- GP practice
Dr Christopher Bark Also known as The Soho Square Surgery
Assessment report published 29 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: We conducted an assessment from 23 to 25 February 2026. The inspection was carried out due to the length of time since the last inspection. We carried out the remote clinical searches on 23rd February, remote interviews on 23 and 24 February and a site visit on 25 February 2026.
Dr Christopher Bark, also known as The Soho Square Surgery, is a GP practice that delivers services to 3,292 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the service is 58.67% White, 19.78% Asian, 7.69% Black, 6.49% Mixed and 7.37% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 5th decile (5 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide the following regulated activities: diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, and treatment of disease, disorder, or injury. 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 practice had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.
Effective: Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff involved those important to people 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 practice supported staff wellbeing.
Responsive: The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice 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 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.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were satisfied with services. The results in this report will refer to the 2025 results as the assessment was conducted before the 2026 results published. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) was not active at the time of the assessment, which is an area for development. We spoke with representatives that were previously part of the PPG who described how managers were caring and that the practice made alternative provisions of care with evening and weekend appointment availability. Some of the members informed us they were no longer able to commit to the meetings, while others remained interested in the PPG being reintroduced.
As part of our assessment the practice directed its patients to provide feedback directly to CQC. We did not receive any feedback via this method. During this period, CQC’s webform was not available because of a technical fault, though there were alternative telephone and email options.