The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Carmel Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Nunnery Lane, Darlington, County Durham, DL3 8SQ 0844 477 8758

Provided and run by:
Carmel Medical Practice

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 30 July 2025 to 5 August 2025. Carmel Medical Practice is a GP practice and delivers service to 11,702 patients under a contract held with NHS England. 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.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. 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. 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 and promote staff development. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice.Staff involved those people, for example carers and relatives, in decisions taken in people's best interests where they did not have capacity.

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.

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 had taken steps to improve access to appointments. 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 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.

03/12/2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

  • High performance was recognised by credible external bodies. Outcomes for people who use services were positive, consistent and regularly exceeded expectations.
  • Staff, teams and services were committed to working collaboratively and had found innovative and efficient ways to deliver more joined-up care to people who use services.
  • Staff were consistent in supporting people to live healthier lives, including identifying those who needed extra support, through a targeted and proactive approach to health promotion and prevention of ill-health, and they used every contact with people to do so.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The leaders at the practice were proactive and collaborated effectively with local stakeholders, including in the sharing of new developments.

We saw the following outstanding practice:

The approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment people who used services was truly holistic. Outcomes for people who use services were consistently better than expected when compared with other similar services. The service made use of innovative and pioneering approaches to care and how it was delivered and actively encouraged this.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

18 March 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Carmel Medical Practice on 18 March 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good. Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they could get an appointment, with urgent appointments available the same day. Data and some feedback from patients showed it was not always possible to make an appointment with a named GP and to easily get through on the telephone. The practice demonstrated they were taking steps to try and address these issues.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Staff felt supported by all staff at the practice. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

We saw areas of outstanding practice. Some examples are detailed below:

  • The practice was using innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes and it linked with other local providers to share best practice. New evidence based techniques were used to support the delivery of high-quality care and high performance was recognised by credible external bodies. Two GPs at the practice were GPs with special interests (GPSI); one in cardiology and the other in respiratory medicine. The practice was able to manage more complex patients within the practice. The GPSIs encouraged peer to peer referrals within the CCG area; both of which we were told helped reduce referrals to secondary care consultants.
  • A comprehensive electronic system was in place for replacing emergency medicines that were used. The system operated on a ‘real time’ basis which mitigated the risk of medicines not being available or expired.
  • The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people, including attendance at multi-disciplinary meetings from the voluntary sector, for example Age Concern. Records showed these patients had been visited by the voluntary sector as part of their package of multi-disciplinary care.
  • The practice actively promoted diabetic patient education schemes and a locally procured CCG scheme and could demonstrate a high uptake from patients.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice