Midlands Medical Partnership

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

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.

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.
Care plans reflected physical, mental, emotional, and social needs of patients including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Our review of clinical records showed patients were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care.

The service had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.
The service analysed health inequalities data to identify gaps in care for vulnerable groups such as people who experienced homelessness, substance misuse and multiple long-term conditions.

They were a ‘Safe Surgery’ as in a GP practice committed to addressing the barriers many migrants face when accessing healthcare are a safe surgery. The practice was also an armed forces veteran friendly accredited GP service.

We saw the practice worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its patient population. The practice had tailored its services to meet the diverse needs of its community, for example, building relationships with community groups to promote the take up of screening programmes. There were established mechanisms for engaging with the community healthcare provider.

Care Coordinators and the pharmacy team supported clinical staff teams in their support of learning disability individuals and those residing in a care home to provide continuity of care. The service provided a GP service for patients no longer in secure facilities, housed locally and supported by probation services and community teams. Staff ensured they had awareness of the range of services available to them via the social prescriber. The service and social prescribers supported patients who were refugees or asylum seekers and promoted social inclusion.

The service employed a team of paramedics whose role included weekly visits to the care homes for continuity and carried out at least monthly care home ward rounds supported by the GPs. We sought feedback from some of the care homes regarding the GP service provided by Midlands Medical Partnership (MMP). We received extremely positive feedback. They stated they valued their professional working relationship, that GPs and clinical staff held face to face on site support at the care home as a weekly round, and they provided care to people with very complex health and communication needs. They supported the patient’s families, reviewed DNACPR forms, provided medicines optimisation and provided clinical advice to their staff. They singled out individual GPs for praise describing them as excellent in their provision of care and treatment for patients and of the support provided. The care home staff reported on how highly they valued the GPs and staff at MMP.

The service provided evidence of their partnership with local Integrated Care Board (ICB), Birmingham Community Trust and Public Health teams to align services with wider population health goals. They attended and contributed to multi-agency meetings with social care, mental health services, voluntary sector organisations, housing support, and community outreach teams. They contributed to local initiatives such as population health management projects, health inequality audits, and social prescribing schemes.

The service worked closely with Witton Lodge Community Association in delivering services to patients. This is a community association and community landlord, established by residents of Perry Common, in a response to an announcement that 908 houses would be demolished. They own and manage over 200 homes for social and market rent and a 40-apartment Independent Living Scheme. As a community association they support local people with jobs and skills advice and worked with the local community and partners to host a wide range of community events and activities.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information to promote the take up of screening and immunisation programmes was available in a range of languages. The practice had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. Information provided by the service met the Accessible Information Standard. Patients were informed as to how to access their care records.
Information for people using the service was available on display boards within the waiting room. Health promotion leaflets were available. For example, lifestyle advice, screening programmes and NHS health checks.

The practice took account of their patient demographic in respect of booking of appointments as many had preferred to use the phone or face to face. Patients potentially digitally excluded were offered information in other formats such as letters. Autistic people and people with a learning disability were provided with information in appropriate formats, including pictorial easy read formats.
The service had introduced and piloted online booking system software. The software allowed staff to see who last saw the patient, so patients could be rebooked with the same clinician, if possible, for continuity. Patients also could request this. During the pilot they evaluated its effectiveness and provided feedback to the local Integrated Care Boards. At the time of our assessment patients completed the online form between 8am and 11am. From 1 October 2025, based on national guidelines, it was to be offered during opening hours. The service had considered its approach to managing this change. They reflected that the all-day approach and the software ability and capacity to manage an increase in volume was untested. The service had put in place a safety net strategy to revert to their existing arrangements in the event that the increase was not manageable.

The practice engaged with the patient engagement group (PEG). However, the PEG reported that this had been less effective in the past 18 months than previous years. They reported that there were openings for further improvement for collaborative support and feedback. The PEG had organised digital health days, in which theyhelped patients to use smart phone Apps. They reported on awareness of digital barriers in patient access, some patients being without broadband access at home, patients concerns on phone data usage and affordability. The PEG core members indicated their willingness to help patients with these needs by facilitating access to free telephone data cards, thereby enhancing the service's ability to connect patients with supportive access systems.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

It had been reported as a concern to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) that the services complaint policy lacked investigation guidance and the service used dismissive proforma response templates. That there were no real investigations or learning from complaints and that meeting minutes were edited retroactively to falsely show complaint discussions. We found complaints were investigated and discussed, further verified by staff we spoke with and the returned CQC staff questionnaires. We saw complaints were managed in line with the practice’s policy.

Twenty-four staff responded to the CQC staff feedback questionnaires, comprising both clinical and non-clinical team members. All were able to describe the complaints process, stated they were discussed in meetings following investigations and had awareness of the derived leaning following a complaint information. Not all could recall a recent event. Staff we spoke with on site and remotely held complaint process awareness.

We randomly selected complaints and reviewed them in full including the services responses to the complainants following their investigation. We found these to be satisfactory and where the complaint was upheld that appropriate apologies were provided as well as information on the next steps they could take.
The service maintained a complaints matrix and there were 135 noted for 2025, with 7 ongoing complaint investigations at the time of our assessment. We found that a summary and outcome of complaints were discussed at practice meetings. These were well documented with complaint oversight maintained via the matrix. A GP partner held the role of complaint lead supported by staff at each local site.

General complaints, such as those regarding appointment availability, were managed by the site where the patient was registered. Complaints handled by the central team were managed by the relevant manager, for example, when the issue related to the locality hub. If a complaint involved cross-team issues (e.g., both local and hub staff), the site lead for the patient’s registered location coordinated the response, following the investigation and incorporating any necessary input from the central team lead.

Whilst at the sites we found patients needed to ask for the complaint information leaflets from reception staff. Having the leaflets available for patients to take without the need for reception support unless language or their communication need requirements would improve this further. Patients may not always feel comfortable or safe raising concerns directly with staff, especially if the complaint involved those same individuals. This was fed back at the sites we visited and was actioned. We also fed this back to the leadership team for wider actioning. There were waiting room notices on how to raise a complaint and information on the practice website. The website noted to report to the complaints manager but contained no named person which we also fed back to the leadership team.

The service offered GP services across 10 sites which included enhanced services, such as minor surgery, family planning, specialist multi-disciplinary team led services, such as pharmacists for patient medication reviews, paramedics for home visits and urgent care and social prescribers for first-contact support. In addition to in-person services, the organisation delivered remote care options such as triage consultations, online appointments, and video consultations. To maximise accessibility, services were available during weekdays with extended hours into evenings and weekends.

The service had completed an access improvement audit. This included a review of information provided by the integrated care board for the localities for benchmarking and learning across the services. This data included data on their patients’ use of the 111 service during the practice opening hours, use of AE services during the in hours period. Extrapolated data demonstrated that they provided the highest number of online consultations in the locality. The data indicated that the service had fewer than the average number of patients using NHS 111 and AE services during the practice in-hours period, but a higher-than-average rate of patients who did not attend scheduled appointments.

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 also 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 account of the demographics, digital exclusion and health literacy, with consideration of patients' literacy levels regardless of the persons first language. We found there was a high number of face-to-face appointments offered to patients in order to meet their needs. The service had piloted the use of an on-line software system which allowed staff to see which clinician last saw the patient, so patients could rebook then with same clinician, if possible, for continuity. Patients also could request this. At the time of the assessment patients couldcomplete the online form between 8 to 11am. From 1 October it changed to the services contracted opening hours. They had considered their approach to managing this change and increase in online volume and had a safety net strategy in place. The service provided enhanced access on Saturdays at Erdington and All Saints Surgery and offered extended access hours.
Patients we spoke with and some of the cases received to Care Quality Commission reported that getting through on the phones was difficult due to the ‘8am rush.’ Results between 2024 to 2025, from patients who had completed the friends and family test (FFT) were compared and contrasted. These demonstrated improvement had been made. For example, results from patients who were extremely likely or likely to recommend the service was 69.32% in 2024 and 77.89% in 2025. Those extremely unlikely or unlikely was 18.89% in 2024 and was 12.85% in 2025.
The service completed an equalities access audit annually and this was last completed in July 2025. This included wheelchair availability and disabled access, some sites for example, had touch button opening doors, when others had a button buzzer for staff to support patients where this facility was absent. There were wider doorways, disabled toilets, lower desk areas in reception, hearing loops, disabled car parking, large print and the availability of easy read and multiple language patient information or documentation.

The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff had access to policies such as their equality and diversity policy and training.

The service had conducted a quality improvement project on digital exclusion between 2024 and 2025. It’s ambition was to support patients to improve IT skills and build confidence. Reception staff were trained to assist patient access through the IT online system for appointments, whilst providing patients with the option that the staff could also enter when required the information on the patient’s behalf.

The service had an active patient engagement group (PEG) with representatives from the diverse demographics of the local community. With 3 core members and a total of 10 members at the time of our assessment. In the past they had run targeted listening events and focus groups, for example, with carers, asylum seekers, or those with long-term conditions, to understand barriers to care and co-design solutions.

We found the service gathered patient feedback via surveys, FFT results, suggestion boxes (though they advised this was rarely utilised), and digital platforms. Feedback from these forums were reviewed regularly and assisted the formation of their service improvement plan.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service has one of the most deprived populations in the country. It is in the top decile for older people living in poverty, 52% higher than the national average, is in the top quintile for children living in poverty, 53% higher than the national average. It has a Black and Asian population that is nearly 2 times higher than the national average and has a life expectancy that is slightly lower than the Integrated Care System (ICS) average. A culturally diverse population may present a potential risk for broader health inequalities and disparities.

Leaders demonstrated proactive commitment to improving patient experience by identifying and addressing barriers to equitable healthcare access. Working in partnership with local organisations, including those in the voluntary sector, they focused on reducing health inequalities through targeted initiatives.One notable example was a quality improvement project conducted between 2023 and 2025, aimed at increasing prostate cancer screening uptake among Black African and Black Caribbean men. This initiative was delivered in collaboration with a Birmingham-based social enterprise, commissioned by Birmingham City Council’s Public Health Division as the Deep Engagement Partner.The project reviewed disparities in cancer screening and found that uptake of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, (a marker produced by the prostate gland), was significantly lower among Black African and Black Caribbean men aged 45–70, at just 18%, compared to 32% in the overall male cohort of the same age group.Using its proprietary men’s health template, the service identified 506 eligible individuals and launched a targeted outreach campaign. This included a dedicated screening event, which resulted in a fourfold increase in PSA test uptake over the previous five years. Of the 140 Black men who attended scheduled clinics, 75% accepted an additional physical examination. Clinical outcomes included: 9 men identified with elevated PSA levels, 6 new diagnoses of diabetes, 7 individuals with raised blood pressure requiring monitoring and a patient flagged for a mental health annual review.In recognition of this impactful work, the service was awarded a grant in July 2025 via the NHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care System’s (BSol ICS) Fairer Futures Fund. As lead partner, they will deliver a three-year collaborative programme focused on improving Black men’s health and wellbeing through:
•Increasing health literacy

•Changing attitudes toward health checks

•Improving access to health services

•Strengthening health behaviours

•Boosting uptake of health checks

•Developing and sharing best practices

Additionally, the service led an external campaign to engage South Asian non-responders. In partnership with Cancer Research UK, they hosted outreach stalls outside a local mosque to promote cancer screening. Of the 455 individuals contacted, 76 participated, yielding a 16.7% success rate. Notably, the non-response rate among South Asian men aged 60–74 had now decreased from 39.66% to 34.7% over five years.

This work required building long-term relationships with communities and community stakeholders. Gaining trust and meaningful engagement for any intervention. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. The provider had processes to ensure people could register at the practice, including those in vulnerable circumstances such as homeless people and Travellers. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not speak English or have access to the internet.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Our records review showed people were supported to consider their wishes for their end-of-life care, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This information was shared with other services when necessary.