Updated 22 August 2025
Date of Assessment: 22/08/2025 to 19/09/2025. We conducted this assessment because of a change to the provider’s registration. We assessed all quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. Gough Walk Practice was registered as a new provider on 23 December 2019.
Gough Walk Practice delivers GP services to 12,000 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The service is located in Tower Hamlets, London and is part of the Poplar and Limehouse Health and Wellbeing Primary Care Network (PCN). The National General Practice Profiles states that 43.34% people are Asian, 34.23% are white, 8.66% are Black, 4.62% Mixed and 4.15% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the third decile (3 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. This is the first assessment for this provider under our new ways of reporting.
SAFE: Staff reported feeling safe to raise concerns. Incidents were investigated appropriately, and effective risk management processes were in place. Facilities and equipment were clean, well maintained and suitable for service needs. Staffing levels were sufficient, with staff holding the right skills and experience. Managers ensured staff received regular training and appraisals to support high‑quality care.
Medicines were generally well managed, and people were involved in decisions about changes. However, staff did not always complete required blood tests and physical health checks before reviews or issuing prescriptions.
EFFECTIVE: Staff had not always followed prescribing protocols and guidance to ensure assessments were up-to-date and people’s care needs were routinely reviewed. We found care was not always based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving between services. Staff mostly made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.
CARING: Peoples feedback demonstrated they were treated with respect. 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.
RESPONSIVE: Peoples feedback demonstrated the practice was accessible and they were supported to make informed decisions about their care. The service had developed accurate and up-to-date information to ensure patient access and that their specific needs were met. People were given support to plans for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
WELL-LED: Leadership was visible, knowledgeable, and supportive. Staff felt safe to give feedback. Roles and responsibilities were well understood. Managers engaged with the local community to improve care and welcomed innovation. Leaders used reliable data on risk, performance, and outcomes. Governance processes were mostly well-established, with accessible policies and procedures. However, the leaders had not ensured that staff always followed prescribing policies and evidence-based guidelines. Oversight of medicines management needed strengthening to ensure the safe delivery of care and treatment.