Practice Suspended After Inspection Reveals Serious Risks
Naseby Medical Centre in Saltley, Birmingham, has had its registration suspended by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) after inspectors identified serious safety and care failings. The surgery, which serves over 5,000 patients, was also named as one of the worst GP practices in England in the 2026 GP Patient Survey.
In the survey, fewer than four in ten (38%) patients rated the practice as good or very good, placing it bottom of all practices in the West Midlands and among the five lowest-rated in England.
Urgent Action Taken to Protect Patients
The CQC suspended Naseby Medical Centre's registration on August 7, 2025, following an inspection in July and August 2025. The suspension was extended for a further three months in February 2026 due to ongoing significant risks. During the suspension, another organisation is managing services to ensure patients continue to receive treatment.
In its latest inspection report, published in May 2026, the CQC stated: "On August 7, 2025 the Care Quality Commission (CQC) urgently suspended the registration of Naseby Medical Centre in response to serious concerns identified during an inspection in July and August 2025. As a result of these concerns we took urgent action to protect the safety and welfare of people using this service."
Failures in Monitoring and Governance
Inspectors found that leaders failed to monitor long-term conditions, did not regularly review whether medications were appropriate, and relied on outdated record systems. Staff did not follow guidance, putting patients at risk of serious complications.
The CQC report added: "We identified that whilst the provider had made some progress towards rectifying the serious concerns the CQC had identified, the provider was unable to demonstrate that effective governance arrangements would be implemented to manage risks, performance and deliver safe care to patients who used the service."
Leadership Lacked Understanding of Failings
The report highlighted that the leadership team did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of the serious clinical safety and governance failings previously identified. They had not embedded learning or engaged meaningfully with the caretaker provider to ensure a safe transition of services. Policies had been drafted but not implemented, environmental risks were not effectively managed, and concerns about staff competence and unsuitable staffing plans remained.
The CQC concluded: "There was no assurance of effective systems for managing long‑term conditions, medication reviews, high‑risk medicines, or accurate clinical record‑keeping. Leaders had not reflected on the impact of previous poor‑quality, non‑person‑centred care, and improvement planning remained limited and reactive. While some late actions were taken, they did not provide confidence that safe, well‑governed care could be delivered. Ongoing significant risks led to the suspension of registration being extended for a further three months."
