• Doctor
  • GP practice

The Victoria Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Victoria Road, Tipton, West Midlands, DY4 8SS (0121) 557 3422

Provided and run by:
The Victoria Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 10 November 2025 to 11 November 2025. The Victoria Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to 4,425 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 59.20% of patients are White, 26.48% Asian, 7.56% Black, 3.60% Mixed and 3.15% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 2nd decile (2 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 good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly and processes were in place to ensure learning was shared with all the team to mitigate future risks. 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 any risks 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 managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

Staff managed the majority of medicines well, but improvements were needed in the management of medicines that required regular monitoring. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained.

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.

People were involved in assessments of their needs; however, we found improvements were required in the management of some long term conditions.

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 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. Feedback from patients was positive about accessing the services provided and this was also reflected in the results of the GP National Patient Survey. 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. 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.

15 June 2017

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 The Victoria Surgery on 20 January 2016. The overall rating for the practice was Good. However, for providing safe service the practice was rated as requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the June 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Victoria Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 15 June 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection on the 20 January 2016.

Overall the practice is rated as Good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • During our previous inspection we saw that the practice had a defibrillator and oxygen available on the premises. This equipment was only checked annually and we found that the oxygen mask and defibrillator pads were out of date. At this follow up inspection we saw monthly checks had been introduced for both the defibrillator and oxygen to ensure it was in good working order. There were masks and pads available and they were in date.
  • When we inspected the practice in January 2016 we saw that some prescriptions had not been collected for nearly two months; two of these were for children, one of which was for the treatment of asthma. This did not ensure safeguards were in place to ensure that vulnerable patients always received medicines in a timely way. At this follow up inspection we saw the practices’ repeat prescription protocol had been reviewed and a monthly log had been introduced to account for all uncollected prescriptions.
  • When we inspected the practice in January 2016 we saw most staff had received a Disclosure and Barring Service (BDS) check. However, one staff member was undergoing a DBS check. They carried out the role of a chaperone but the practice had not formally assessed risk whilst waiting to for the outcome of the DBS check. At this inspection we looked at all administration staff files and saw DBS checks were in place. DBS checks help to identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable
  • During our previous inspection we saw all the emergency medicines were in date. However, they were they were not easily accessible to staff in the event of an emergency. At this follow up inspection we saw that the practice had carried out a risk assessment and had relocated the emergency medicines to accessible locations.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

20 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Although risks to patients who used services were assessed, the systems and processes to address these risks were not implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe. For example, a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check for one member of staff had been applied for but the certificate had not been received and a risk assessment had not been completed.
  • There were uncollected prescriptions; some were nearly two months old. This meant that insufficient safeguards were in place to ensure that patients always received medicines in a timely way.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed that patients scored the practice lower than the CCG and national average with regards its satisfaction scores on consultations with GPs and nurses and involvement in planning and making decisions about their care and treatment. The practice had taken action to make improvements.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by 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.
  • Policies were available to staff online. However the Whistleblowing policy did not signpost staff to where they would obtain external support if required.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • Ensure that emergency equipment is properly maintained, checked and fit for purpose.

Areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider storing emergency medicines in a location that is accessible at all times.
  • Consider improving the process for the review of uncollected prescriptions.
  • Ensure risk assessments are completed in the absence of a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice