The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Cornhill Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

65 New Road, Rubery, Rednal, Birmingham, West Midlands, B45 9JT (0121) 453 3591

Provided and run by:
Cornhill Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment:12 May 2026 to 19 May 2026. Cornhill Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 5800 patients under a contract held with NHS England.The practice is in Worcestershire but is on the border of south Birmingham and supports patients living in both counties.Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows 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 culture where people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents but recording and learning from these was not always clear. People were protected and kept safe.There were enough staff with the right skills,qualifications and experience.However,there were gaps in staff training and recruitment process needed to be improved. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. 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 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 to make decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

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. However, they were not always fully aware of issues relating to governance, such as summarising of new patient notes and ensuring all staff had completed the required training to the correct level for their role. Leaders took immediate action to resolve the issues raised during the inspection.

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.

21 February 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a focused desk based inspection of Cornhill Surgery on 21 February 2017 to check that action had been taken since our previous inspection on 28 June 2016. At the inspection in June 2016, the practice was rated as good overall but rated as requires improvement for providing safe services.

We found that the practice required improvement in this area due to a breach of regulation relating to safe care and treatment. This was because:

  • the practice had not undertaken a Legionella risk assessment, therefore the risk to patients and staff of infection by the Legionella bacteria had not been established.

On 21 February 2017 we reviewed the information the practice submitted to us to ensure that they had followed their action plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection of Cornhill Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Our key findings for this inspection were as follows:

The provider had made improvements:

  • They had commissioned the services of an external contractor to carry out Legionella testing, and had continued to receive ongoing regular assessments from them.

The provider had also addressed all areas which had been identified that actions should take place to improve practice which are detailed in the report.

The practice is now rated good for providing safe services.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

28 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cornhill Surgery on 28 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.

  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. The GPs had weekly meetings to discuss concerns and share learning. However it was not always clear who the lead was for particular roles such as safeguarding and infection control.

  • There was a leadership structure and staff felt supported by the GPs and the practice manager. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients which it acted on.

  • Prescriptions were securely stored, however they were not signed for on receipt and they did not record serial numbers. The practice stated that an audit trail to govern prescriptions would be introduced following the inspection.

  • The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

  • Risks to patients were generally assessed and well managed, although at the time of the inspection the practice had not carried out a legionella risk assessment, regular infection control audits and a risk assessment in relation to equipment checks.

  • The fire alarm was tested every week but we did not see evidence of staff receiving fire training or that regular fire drills were carried out. Following the inspection the practice has provided evidence to confirm that staff have had now received fire training.

  • Patients described staff as caring and helpful. Patients commented that they were treated with dignity and respect

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

We saw two areas of outstanding practice:

  • One of the GP partners paid for a weekly social group for older patients at a community centre. On average 30 people attended per week. Patients were able to bring friends from different practices if they wished.Two of the patients we spoke with during the inspection told us how beneficial this had been for patients who were socially isolated. This took place every Wednesday afternoon. The patients were given refreshments and played games such as bridge and chess. The GPs sometimes organised external speakers such as carer organisations and the citizens advice bureau to speak with the group. The practice used the opportunity to give advice around maintaining health.

  • All of the practice team had received deaf awareness training and had ordered a hearing loop following this training. All patients with a hearing or visual impairment were highlighted on the system and alerts were put on so that patients were collected from the waiting area.

However, there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

The provider should:

  • Implement a system to ensure the safe management of prescribing stationery across the practice.

  • Ensure that systems are in place so that risk assessments and equipment checks are documented.

  • Ensure that all staff at the practice are aware of which members of the team are the leads for specific areas of responsibility such as infection control and safeguarding.

  • Ensure that all staff are aware of the systems and processes in place for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

  • Review fire safety and evacuation procedures to ensure patients and staff safety in the event of a fire.

  • Carry out a regular infection control audit.

  • Strengthen governance systems in place at the practice to ensure all risks are acted on effectively.

The provider must:

  • Carry out a legionella risk assessment

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice