Check My GPCare ratings, made clear
Search by postcode

GP practice · independent evidence profile

Midlands Medical Partnership

Erdington Medical Centre, 103 Wood End Road, Erdington, Birmingham, West Midlands, B24 8NT

CQC location 1-631261786NHS organisation code M85063
Current overall CQC ratingGoodAssessment dated 25 July 2025
Active registrationRegistered

Registered from 1 April 2013.

Registered addressErdington Medical Centre, 103 Wood End Road, Erdington, Birmingham, West Midlands, B24 8NT

A registered address may be where care is managed rather than delivered.

Responsible health systemNHS Birmingham and Solihull Integrated Care Board

ODS code M85063. Data refreshed 31 August 2026.

Location and contact

Erdington Medical Centre, 103 Wood End Road, Erdington, Birmingham, West Midlands, B24 8NT

Use the provider website or telephone number to confirm opening times, services and whether this is the place where care is delivered.

CQC assessment breakdown

How the service was assessed

These are CQC key-question results for this location. A percentage is shown only where CQC publishes one.

Caring

Good
75%

This service is caring

Effective

Good
79%

This service is effective

Responsive

Good
82%

This service is responsive

Safe

Good
78%

This service is safe

Well-led

Outstanding
89%

This service is exceptionally well-led

Latest published evidence

Ongoing Assessment for Midlands Medical Partnership

Assessment dated 25 July 2025. Published 10 November 2025.

What CQC reported

The service is performing well and meeting our expectations.

People’s experience

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.

GP Patient Survey 2026

What registered patients reported

153 completed questionnaires · 18% response rate.

79.3%

Overall experience was good

Confidence interval 39%–95.8%
71.6%

Experience of contacting the practice was good

Confidence interval 32.7%–92.9%
96.5%

Last appointment met the patient’s needs

Confidence interval 54.4%–99.8%
88.8%

Healthcare professional was good at listening

Confidence interval 46.4%–98.6%
85.1%

Healthcare professional treated the patient with care and concern

Confidence interval 43.5%–97.7%
97.2%

Patient had confidence and trust in the healthcare professional

Confidence interval 54.7%–99.9%
87.2%

Reception and administrative team were helpful

Confidence interval 45.6%–98.2%
54.7%

Contacting the practice by phone was easy

Confidence interval 20.6%–84.9%
47.4%

Contacting the practice through its website was easy

Confidence interval 12.7%–84.8%

Survey percentages are weighted official statistics and describe the people who responded; they are not a Check My GP score or ranking. Results based on small numbers may be suppressed by the survey publisher.

Community experiences

Patient reviews of Midlands Medical Partnership

Personal reviews are moderated and shown separately from official CQC findings and the GP Patient Survey.

New

No approved community reviews yet.

Be the first to share a useful, factual experience.

Leave a review

Share your experience

Describe access, communication and staff—not private medical details. Every submission is checked before publication.

Do not include diagnoses, medication, NHS numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, staff surnames or accusations. Reviews are personal experiences, not verified clinical evidence.

Registered scope

Services and regulated activities

Labels below come from the CQC location record and do not confirm current appointment availability.

Service types

Doctors/Gps

Regulated activities

Transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotelyMaternity and midwifery servicesFamily planningTreatment of disease, disorder or injurySurgical proceduresDiagnostic and screening procedures

Specialisms

Services for everyone

Published record

Rating and report history

Use the official CQC record for complete reports, regulatory action and any changes after our last refresh.

9 October 2019GoodCQC rating history
19 February 2019GoodCQC rating history
22 March 2017OutstandingCQC rating history

Read this profile carefully

Evidence, not a league table.

CQC findings and GP Patient Survey results answer different questions and may cover different time periods. Neither confirms current appointment availability, NHS acceptance, opening hours or whether a provider is suitable for you.

Check the provider’s own website and the complete official CQC record before making a decision. If you need urgent medical help, use NHS 111 or call 999 in an emergency.

Independent lookup: Check My GP is not affiliated with the CQC, NHS or this provider. Providers cannot pay to change their rating or position. CQC data is reused under the Open Government Licence; GP Patient Survey results are published by NHS England and Ipsos.