Scott Road Medical Centre

Updated 29 May 2025

Date of Assessment: 20 June 2025 to 1 July 2025.

Scott Road Medical Centre is a GP practice which delivers service to 11367 (as of 1 June 2025) patients under a contract held with NHS England.

The National General Service Profiles state the ethnicity of the local population of the practice (as of 1 April 2023) consisted of 97.5% White, 0.9% Mixed, 0.8% Asian, 0.3% Black, and 0.5% Other. The age distribution of the service population is the same as the national average for older people (17%). For young people, it’s slightly above (20.9%) the national average (19.5%).

Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows the deprivation within the practice population group is in the sixth decile (6 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 on service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

We rated the key question of safe as requires improvement

Patients were not always protected and kept safe. Staff and patients could raise concerns, but the service did not always learn from safety events. The service did not always manage and mitigate risks appropriately. Staff did not always have the right skills and experience. Staff did not always assess risks to a patient’s health and safety or mitigate them where identified. The service did not always ensure staff received the appropriate level of supervision. The service did not safely manage medicines. However, the facilities and equipment of the service met the needs of staff and patients, and were clean and well-maintained, with any risks mitigated.

We rated the key question of effective as requires improvement.

The service did not always plan and deliver evidence-based care and treatment to patients. They did not always follow legislation and current evidence-based good service and standards. The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health needs with them. However, the service made appropriate considerations about whether patients had capacity to make decisions, and they involved relevant people to help make decisions in the best interests of a patient where necessary. The service worked well across teams and services to support people and ensure key information about patients was available to professionals who needed to review it.

We rated the key question of caring as good.

Patients were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff treated patients as individuals and supported their preferences. Patients had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

We rated the key question of responsive as good.

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. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

We rated the key question of well-led as requires improvement.

The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.Staff did not always feel their voice would be heard. There was not a culture of continuous improvement. However, leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The service worked well with the local community and other organisations to achieve positive outcomes for patients.

We found breaches of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance.

In instances where the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded if the action has been taken forward. We have also asked the service for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 29 May 2025

Patients were mostly positive about the quality of their care and treatment at Scott Road Medical Centre.

We viewed the latest results from the national GP Patient Survey. 75% of patients described their overall experience of this service as good, which was the same as the national result.

The NHS ‘Friends and Family Test’ data gathered by the service showed most patients felt their experience of the service was either good or very good.

As part of this assessment, the service was asked to promote CQC’s ‘Give Feedback on Care’ which they did in their premises via posters, on their website and via social media. We received 204 patient responses, 88% of which were generally positive. Positive feedback included comments about ease of access to appointments, the quality of clinical care received, staff attitudes, and the management of long-term conditions. One patient told us, “They continue to keep up with all my health issues and provide me with comprehensive care and support. Doctors, Nurses and reception staff are professional and thorough.” Another patient told us, “I do find the service very helpful.” One patient explained the attentive support they’d received following their health concern, and wanted to wish a “Thank you to the whole team.” Areas of negative patient feedback included concerns over ability to get an appointment, the attitude of some staff members, and the requirement of patients to provide health information to non-clinical staff when trying to get an appointment. Some patients told us it was hard to get an appointment with a GP, that they were only able to access services via the online request form, and that it was a “nightmare trying to get booked in”.

The service had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG) which represented the views of people using the service. The group usually met quarterly. Feedback from the group included concerns over access to appointments, as well as the PPG meeting time being quite restrictive (meaning this perhaps prevented other patients from joining). The group was keen to be more involved in any plans for improvements to the service. Both the service and the PPG were keen to encourage other patients to get involved in the group to ensure better representation of the local patient population.

We did not receive any concerns from the local Integrated Care Board (ICB). An ICB is an NHS organisation in England responsible for planning and managing health services for a specific area within an Integrated Care System (ICS).

We received mixed feedback from providers of residential / nursing homes whose residents received a service from Scott Road Medical Centre. They confirmed multidisciplinary meetings were held weekly by the service to discuss residents. These were said to be effective and run smoothly. Other positive feedback included service receptionists being easy to speak to and directing queries to the appropriate clinician, and the weekly call being beneficial for medication reviews and non-urgent issues to be discussed. Visiting GPs to the care homes were said to be professional, friendly, respectful, kind, caring and compassionate. Negative feedback included it being hard to get a GP to conduct face-to-face appointments with residents, prescribing being done over the telephone (which was not always deemed appropriate by the care home provider), and concerns over the quality of clinical care provided to some residents.