Updated 22 July 2025
Date of Assessment: 27 October 2025 to 5 November 2025. Gladstone House is a GP practice and delivers services to 5,036 people under a contract held with NHS England. We carried out an assessment because the service had not been inspected since 2016. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 96.2% White, 1.3% Asian, 1.4% Mixed, 0.6% Black and 0.4% other. The age distribution of the practice population indicates the practice had a higher number of young people than the local and national averages and similar numbers of working age and older people. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 4th decile (4 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 the majority of risks had been 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 mostly managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes. However, improvements were required to the management of prescription stationery with the service.
People were mostly involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was generally 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 ensured the involvement of appropriate professionals and/or people important to the person in any best interest decisions where people lacked capacity. However, the relevant forms were not always available on file for people when a decision had been made not to resuscitate.
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. Staff wellbeing was supported through the appointment of a wellbeing champion, and the working practices and ethos of the service.
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. Governance procedures relating to the management of prescription stationery required strengthening. 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.