During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: 19 January 2026 to 21 January 2026. Walkden Medical Practice (also known as Walkden Medical Centre) is a GP practice and delivers service to 8,867 under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that ethnically, 89% of patients identify as white and 11% identify as being black; Asian, mixed and/or other.
Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 3 decile (3 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
Although the service aimed to promote a good learning culture and people could raise concerns, processes did not always support ongoing and shared learning.
Investigations lacked depth and did not provide a detailed root cause analysis, although learning was sometimes identified this was not shared with the whole practice where appropriate; themes were not always identified and the overall response to incidents was inconsistent.
Safeguarding protocols and actions protected vulnerable children and, staff were able to manage day to day risks.
The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated.
The provider could not evidence staff in all departments had the right skills, qualifications and experience because evidence did not confirm that all staff, especially administrative had their skills and competencies formally appraised. Staff responsibilities, particularly administrative staff, evolved and changed without active planning.
There were systems in place to manage planned and unplanned absences.
In the main, staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes, however systems had not ensured medicine reviews were always of a consistently high standard. Plans were in place to ensure better consistency.
EFFECTIVE:
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.
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 had processes in place to support staff wellbeing.
RESPONSIVE:
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.
WELL-LED:
Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible and informally available day-to-day. However, effective formal systems such as recorded supervision and appraisals; well documented team and whole staff meetings and evidence of effective monitoring were not in place.
Systems in place did not appropriately support all staff to develop in their roles in a safe controlled manner.
There was a culture of responding to matters as they arose, however action taken did not include cross referencing incidents, identifying themes and taking a practice wide view of improvements through learning. Opportunities for positive change were sometimes overlooked.
Managers worked with the Primary Care Network and local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas.
Staff felt able to give feedback and free from bullying or harassment.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.