- GP practice
Midlands Medical Partnership
Assessment report published 10 November 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 12 September 2025 to 17 September 2025.
Midlands Medical Partnership is a primary care at scale GP practice and delivers service to 59,581 patients, under a contract held with NHS England. Midlands Medical Partnership consists of 10 sites across both North and Central Birmingham localities.
The Care Quality Commission completed onsite inspections at 5 of the 10 sites as part of our assessment process in responsive to the receipt of information of concern. Midlands Medical Partnership practice includes:
• Erdington Medical Centre, 103 Wood End Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 8NT
• All Saints Medical Centre, 2a Vicarage Road, Kings Heath, Birmingham, B14 7RA
• Dudley Park Medical Centre, 28 Dudley Park Road, Acocks Green, Birmingham, B27 6QR
• Eaton Wood Medical Centre, 1128 Tyburn Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 0SY
• Old Priory Surgery, 319 Vicarage Rd, Birmingham, B14 7NN
• Broadmeadow Health Centre, Keynell Covert, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B30 3QT
• High Street Surgery, 26 High Street, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 6RN
• Jockey Road Medical Centre, 519 Jockey Rd, Sutton Coldfield, B73 5DF.
• Kingsmount Medical Centre, 444 Kingstanding Rd, Birmingham B44 9SA
• Stratford House Surgery, 578 Stratford Road, Sparkhill, Birmingham, B11 4AN
Onsite assessments were carried out at the first 5 sites listed above. The National General Practice Profiles reported on the ethnicity of the practice population as, White, 60.35%, Asian, 21.88%, Black, 9.47%, Mixed, 5.22% and Other, 3.09%. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the second decile 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.
People's experience of this service
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) were in receipt of 39 positive feedback cases from patients. There were 57 cases with mixed reviews including complaints. The themes identified included, appointment access, use of digital triage process, repeat or changes to patient medicines, GP or staff attitudes or approaches. The CQC advised these patients to contact the service to raise a complaint if they had not already done so. We do not have powers to investigate or resolve complaints. The only exception to this is for people whose rights are restricted under the Mental Health Act. In certain circumstances, we can act on behalf of the person whose rights have been restricted. (CQC inspectors directly contacted the provider about some of the cases raised. The provider submitted assurance that all concerns raised by patients had been appropriately reviewed and addressed). During our on-site visits, patients spoke positively about the care and treatment they received from the service, some choosing to specifically highlight individual staff members or clinicians by name. Within the 39 positive feedback cases people identified individual staff members, in various roles as being, excellent at their jobs, having behaved kindly towards them and as being diligent in carrying out their tasks.
Recent survey results, including from the National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, were reviewed regularly by the service and action plans for improvements derived. The results from surveys, telephone data and appointments were benchmarked against those from other practices within the local Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), facilitating the sharing of insights, improvements, and lessons learned. This initiative included accounts of the demographics, digital exclusion and health literacy, with consideration of patients' literacy levels regardless of the persons first language.
There was an active patient engagement group (PEG) who represented the views of people using the service. Representatives from the PEG reported there was openings for further improvement for collaborative support and feedback between themselves and the provider. For example, they had a lack of awareness of the multiple patient quality improvement measures and projects the service had completed. Representatives noted that, had these matters been discussed the PEG could have played a role in supporting patient education and promoting attendance through targeted messaging. PEG representatives agreed to have their full feedback shared with the service. In response, the service leadership arranged a face-to-face meeting with the PEG representatives to collaboratively develop an action plan. This meeting had taken place subsequent to our assessment with positive collaboration agreed.