Updated 26 May 2026
Date of Assessment:25 June 2026. Dr Hutchings and Partners (Rosemead Surgery) is a GP practice which delivers services to approximately 7,700 people under a contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 74% White, 18% Asian, 3% Mixed, 2% Black and 3% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 10 decile (10 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.
This was a focused assessment. We undertook this assessment due to the length of time since our last assessment. We assessed 10 quality statements from across all 5 key questions. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the practice, the context the practice was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
SAFE - Staff kept facilities clean. However, the practice was unable to demonstrate that equipment and premises were maintained appropriately, to ensure people were kept safe. Further work was also needed in the assessment and management of the risk of infection, to control the risk of it spreading. Records of training and recruitment did not always show that staff were adequately trained or experienced for their roles.
EFFECTIVE - Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes.
CARING - Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity.
RESPONSIVE - People could access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage groups of people who used the service and sought ways to address any barriers.
WELL-LED - The practice had a clear vision and strategy, which considered the needs of the people who used their service, and the wider community. Staff understood their individual roles and responsibilities. However, governance processes were not always clear, effective or working as intended. Policies were not always followed and identified risks were not always mitigated. Leaders were unable to effectively demonstrate oversight processes for safe premises or working processes.
We found a breach of regulation in relation to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. We plan to carry out a full comprehensive assessment within the next 12 months.