• Doctor
  • GP practice

The Acocks Green Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

999 Warwick Road, Acocks Green, Birmingham, West Midlands, B27 6QJ (0121) 706 0501

Provided and run by:
The Acocks Green Medical Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 08 May 2026 to 18 May 2026. Acocks Green Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 5305 people under a contract held with NHS England. Acocks Green Medical Centre is part of the Health and Beyond Partnership, an organisation operating across Sandwell, Birmingham and Wolverhampton, providing NHS services to more than 30,000 people. The partnership holds a corporate governance structure consisting of an executive board, operational and clinical management groups, as well as partner leads within each surgery. The organisation operates 9 surgeries.

The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic make-up of the practice area is 44% White, 40% Asian, 4% Mixed, 6% Black and 6% other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the first decile (1 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.

We carried out an announced comprehensive assessment of all 5 key questions (Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led). Remote clinical searches were carried out on 05 May 2026, and the site visit was on 8 May 2026.

At the previous inspection in November 2023, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall. The practice was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well‑led with a breach in regulation 12(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in Safe care and treatment. The practice was rated Good for Caring and Responsive.

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. However, there were some gaps in the management of risk such as not maintaining a complete stock of recommended emergency medicines. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and risks mitigated. 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. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people and made decisions in the person’s best interests when they did not have capacity. However, the service was below the national target for childhood immunisations and cervical screening uptake. The provider was able to demonstrate that they were proactive in encouraging uptake with parents and guardians such as through messages and telephone calls.

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 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.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to discuss difficult or complex patient needs or seek advice.

However, we found that the service did not always ensure that people at risk were followed up effectively. Children were not always immunised at the recommended ages. They did not have systems to ensure that they verified immunisation status, or training such as Safeguarding of locum and temporary staff. They also did not have an effective system of Health and Safety audits which failed to note that an emergency pull cord was missing from an accessible bathroom.

2 August 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Acocks Green Medical Centre on 2 August 2023. The practice is rated as requires improvement overall.

Safe – Requires Improvement

Effective – Requires Improvement

Caring – Good

Responsive – Requires Improvement

Well-led – Good

Following our previous inspection on 5 July 2022, the practice was rated requires improvement overall but good for providing caring services.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Acocks Green Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection to follow up breaches of regulation from a previous inspection.

The focus of inspection included:

  • A review of all key questions
  • Follow up of breaches of regulations identified in previous inspection.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A site visit.
  • Speaking with patients and members of the practice’s patient participation group (PPG).

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that mainly kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • The practice had a system for recording and disseminating actions carried out as a result of significant events.
  • The practice had taken appropriate action to support and protect patients identified as at risk from harm.
  • Take steps to ensure that families of patients identified as at risk are linked on the patient information system.
  • Monitor the completion of recruitment interview forms when used to inform decisions of employment.
  • Improve the format of the infection prevention and control audit documentation to clearly identify the outcome, standard reached and any action required.
  • Implement effective systems to promote, monitor and improve the uptake of cancer screening programmes
  • Continue to improve systems to promote the uptake of childhood immunisations.
  • Introduce effective systems to monitor the impact of any actions put in place to improve the uptake of preventative treatments and screening.
  • Actively monitor and improve patient access to the practice.
  • Take steps to monitor the completeness of patient clinical care and medicine reviews.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

5 July 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Acocks Green Medical Centre on 5 July 2022. The practice is rated as requires improvement overall.

Safe – Good

Effective – Requires Improvement

Caring – Good

Responsive – Requires Improvement

Well-led – Good

This was the first inspection since the practice re-registered under a new provider in July 2020.

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection in line with our inspection priorities. This inspection was also planned to follow up concerns raised by patients relating to access.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A site visit.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.
  • The practice had taken appropriate action to support and protect patients identified as at risk from harm. Staff demonstrated awareness of actions required if they suspected safeguarding concerns.
  • The practice had a system for recording and disseminating actions carried out as a result of significant events.

We found that:

  • There continued to be a poor uptake by patients of preventative treatments and screening procedures. In particular, childhood immunisations and cervical screening.
  • The cervical screening rates for the practice were significantly below the national target.
  • The practice uptake for childhood immunisations were below the WHO minimum uptake for all five immunisation indicators.
  • There were gaps in staff records, the practice management team was taking action to ensure clear, accurate and up to date staff information was available for all staff.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice had management oversight of staff qualifications and training.
  • Staff were clear and knowledgeable about their lead roles and responsibilities.
  • Effective governance arrangements had been implemented to mitigate risks and ensure patients were kept safe.
  • Patients reported difficulties accessing care and treatment in a timely way. The practice was trying to address this. However, there was no evidence of management oversight and monitoring to demonstrate if progress was being made to improve access for their patients.
  • There were 142 patients registered as carers at the practice. This represented approximately 2.6% of the practice population.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted an inclusive culture where staff could speak openly, access opportunities for personal development and be involved in the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
  • Demonstrate through active reviews and monitoring improvements in patient access to the practice.

We found breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

The provider should:

  • Record the day of the week that Methotrexate should be taken on the prescription as recommended by best practice guidance.
  • Continue to develop and improve the recruitment processes and standard of staff documentation held.
  • Provide patients with information on how to escalate complaints if required.
  • Document and analyse the outcome of fire drills.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services