- GP practice
Claremont Bank Surgery
Assessment report published 22 September 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 6 August 2025 to 13 August 2025. Claremont Bank Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 7881 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the patient ethnicity profile is made up of 95.13% White, 2.22% Asian, 0.42% Black,1.68% Mixed and 0.55% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 7th decile (7 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.
At the last inspection in November 2023, under our previous methodology, the practice was rated requires improvement overall, requires improvement for providing safe and well-led services and rated good for providing effective, caring and responsive services. This announced focused assessment was carried outto follow-up on the breach identified at our last inspection. The service has now been rated good overall, and good for providing safe, effective and well-led services. The previous ratings for caring and responsive were carried forward from our previous inspection following our review of information.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Leaders investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment were clean and well-maintained, and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Leaders made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.
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. However, the practice did not consistently tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Following our site visit the practice took action to address this.
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. Leaders 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. Staff enjoyed working at the practice.
Since the last inspection, the practice had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations in relation to safe care and treatment.
People's experience of this service
The National GP Patient Survey results for the practice showed people were satisfied with the service they received. The results showed 89% of respondents described their overall experience of this GP practice as good, compared to the local and national average of 75%. The practice scored significantly higher in the survey for people’s overall experience of contacting the practice compared to local and national averages.
We gathered feedback via our ‘Give Feedback on Care’ process. We received feedback from 22 patients, which was mixed. Many patients praised GPs and nurses for being caring, respectful and attentive. Reception staff were mainly described as helpful and polite although some feedback suggested this could be improved in addition to communication. Patients also told us that although urgent care was often available , routine access could be a concern. During our site visit we received positive feedback from 2 patients regarding the care and treatment they received, access to appointments and the dedication and professionalism of both clinical and non-clinical staff. There were 39 unverified reviews on Google with a rating of 4.4*.
A patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service had been re-established. The PPG representative described how leaders had made positive changes to the practice and patient experience as a result of feedback.