During an assessment under our new approach
Date of Assessment: Remote clinical searches were carried out on 30 July 2026 and the site visit took place on 31 July 2026.
The Southall Medical Centre is a GP Practice registered as a partnership with the Care Quality Commission since April 2013. The provider has two registered locations in the London Borough of Ealing. This service was last assessed in January 2015 with a follow up assessment of the key question Safe in November 2016 rated as good overall. This announced comprehensive assessment was undertaken because of the length of time since the last assessment.
The Southall Medical Centre is a GP Practice that delivers General Medical Service (GMS) to approximately 9,370 patients in the London Borough of Ealing under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profile states that the population make up for this location is 14.9% White, 61.9% Asian, 9.4% Black, 2.7% Mixed and 11.1% other non-white ethnic groups.
Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population is in the 3rd decile (3 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This practice is in the third decile indicating it is in a more deprived area on the national scale. 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 assessment process findings are as follows:
People and staff were kept safe and protected from harm and abuse. The practice recorded significant events and shared learning with the practice staff. Risks were understood and managed by the staff. The Infection Prevention and Control policy was specific to the practice and regular audits were completed. Staff had regular appraisals. However, we found that not all staff had completed the required training though the service had provided support for affected staff to complete their training. Not all emergency equipment needed at the early stage of resuscitation was available. The patient group directions (PGDs) for the administration of medicines were not always current and valid for use by staff at the practice.
People were involved in the assessment of their needs. Patients were invited for their health checks reviews. Care plans for people with a learning disability and /or autism were tailored to the patients. The practice generally delivered services in line with good practice. However, there were a few occasions where clinicians did not follow the guidelines appropriately from our clinical searches. The practice worked with relevant stakeholders to achieve best outcomes for the patient population. Information was shared with the patients to ensure they made an informed decision about their health care needs. There was a system of recall for patients who did not engage with the cervical screening and childhood immunisation programmes; however, the impact of the system of recall was not yet known.
People were treated with kindness and compassion by the clinical staff. The dignity and privacy of patients were respected. Staff felt valued and appreciated. Staff wellbeing was treated with the utmost importance by the service. However, analysis of the staff survey was not yet known to determine appropriate measurable actions where necessary.
People received services that were in line with the Equality Act. Interpreting services were made available to patients who needed them. However, more needed to be done to ensure medically trained interpreters were always used. Complaints were handled appropriately and in a timely manner.
The leadership and the management of the practice shared a vision of the practice with the staff. The leadership and management had a clear understanding of equality, human rights and safe compassionate care. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and felt supported. However, we found minor governance issues relating to the oversight of medicines, staff training, clinical oversight and appraisal.