CQC position summary · prepared for Alternaleaf (Montu Group UK Ltd)
Five scores on the record, one already at Good — and a follow-up that will measure the distance travelled since July
Built from Alternaleaf’s own published CQC record — the February report, the live register entry and the scored framework it sits in — not the general guide you downloaded. This is the baseline the next assessment measures against, mapped.
The 30-second read
PositionOverall Requires improvement (59%), published 27 February 2026 from an assessment carried out 22–29 July 2025. Responsive is already Good at 75% — above the GP-practice cohort average.
What’s liveThe register carries a warning notice served 10 September 2025 relating to safe care and treatment. That makes the remediation evidence trail — not the rating — the operative document set right now.
The frameOf the online clinics on the register — Mamedica, Releaf, Sapphire, Integro, Cantourage, Lyphe — none holds a published rating. Alternaleaf is the only one with its position on the public record: the most visible clinic in the set, and the only one that can show a measured before/after.
The 30 minutesThe July scores tell us where the gap was. What we can’t see from outside is how much of it the last year of work has already closed — and whether that work is filed the way the follow-up will look for it. That’s the call.
Book the 30-minute walkthrough
Where the February report left the clinic
One registered location — Winnersh, trading as Alternaleaf — assessed under the Single Assessment Framework with every quality statement reviewed. Every figure below is the published score on cqc.org.uk, checked 10 August 2026.
Safe
50%
Requires improvement
Effective
54%
Requires improvement
Caring
60%
Requires improvement
Responsive
75%
Good — above cohort average
Well-led
54%
Requires improvement
What the report recorded
3 regulation areas
breaches found in relation to safe care and treatment, premises, and good governance — each one names exactly where the follow-up will look first
What the report also recorded
87% satisfaction
patient-satisfaction audits improving between February and June 2025 — evidence of a feedback loop already running before the assessment closed
What the follow-up will measure
This was a responsive assessment, and responsive assessments get followed up. The July scores are not a verdict — they are the baseline. Here is where each key question sat against the 1,172 GP-practice locations holding a scored assessment under the current framework.
Safe — cohort average
70.3%
Effective — Alternaleaf
54%
Effective — cohort average
72.8%
Caring — cohort average
74.9%
Responsive — Alternaleaf
75%
Responsive — cohort average
74.1%
Well-led — Alternaleaf
54%
Well-led — cohort average
72.4%
Cohort: GP-practice locations with a scored Single Assessment Framework rating, latest assessment per location (n = 1,172; cohort median overall score 74%; 11.9% of the cohort sits below Good). The overall 59% sits above only 3.4% of that cohort — which is precisely what makes the improvement measurable: the gap has numbers on it, so closing it will too.
The live register, as of 10 August 2026. The location page carries a notice: a warning notice served on Montu Group UK Ltd on 10 September 2025 for failing to comply with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to safe care and treatment. In practical terms this sets the evidence bar for the Safe key question: when CQC returns, the first thing assessed is whether the matters in that notice are demonstrably resolved — with the documentation to show when and how.
The five bars above are most of what we’d walk through live — statement by statement, against the evidence you already hold.
The set you’re measured in
Alternaleaf’s peers on the register are the other online clinics prescribing cannabis-based medicines. Here is the whole set’s published position, from the same register.
| Clinic | Registered | Published rating | Register status |
|---|
| Alternaleaf (Montu Group UK Ltd) | 8 Oct 2024 | Requires improvement · 59% | Assessed Jul 2025, published 27 Feb 2026 — the only scored assessment in this set |
| Mamedica | 31 Oct 2024 | Not rated | Registered, never assessed |
| Releaf | 28 Jan 2026 | Not rated | Registered, never assessed |
| Sapphire Medical Clinics | 3 Oct 2019 | Not rated | Registered, never rated |
| Integro Medical Clinics | 21 Jun 2023 | Not rated | Registered, never rated |
| Cantourage Clinic | 17 Mar 2022 | Not rated | Inspected Oct 2022 — unrated focused inspection only |
| Lyphe Clinic | 18 Dec 2019 | Not rated | Three unrated focused inspections, latest Oct 2022 |
Two readings of the same table, both true. Alternaleaf is the only clinic in its set wearing a public rating — the most exposed position on the register. It is also the only clinic whose improvement, when the follow-up lands, becomes a public, scored before/after. Nobody else in this set can produce that document.
The honest blind spot. The register shows where July 2025 left each key question and what the warning notice requires. What it cannot show is the year of work since: what has changed in clinical oversight, premises, and governance, and whether that change is evidenced the way an assessor will look for it — per quality statement, dated, with the audit trail attached. A team can close every gap and still score as if it hadn’t, if the evidence lives in inboxes and meeting notes. That’s the gap the call closes.
What a readiness review covers before the follow-up
Not a homework list — the agenda for the 30 minutes.
1. The warning-notice evidence file — resolved, dated, demonstrabletime-sensitive
2. Safe at 50%: which quality statements carried it down, and what has moved sincetime-sensitive
3. Well-led at 54%: the governance record the report said was missingtime-sensitive
4. Protecting Responsive at 75% — the score already at Goodongoing
5. The 87% satisfaction trend as reusable people’s-experience evidenceongoing
6. The Alternaleaf / Montu Pharmacy boundary, documented for patients and assessorsongoing
Show what each item turns on
1
The warning-notice evidence file
Depends on whether each matter in the notice maps to a dated fix with documentation an assessor can verify without asking twice.
Priority
2
Safe at 50%: what has moved since July
Depends on what has changed in risk management and clinical safety practice since the assessment window — and where that change is recorded.
Priority
3
Well-led at 54%: the governance record
Depends on whether oversight, audit and escalation now leave the paper trail the good-governance regulation asks for.
Priority
4
Protecting Responsive at 75%
Depends on keeping the access and responsiveness evidence current — a follow-up re-scores everything, including the strength.
Ongoing
5
The satisfaction trend as evidence
Depends on whether the February–June 2025 audit improvement the report noted has continued, and whether it is captured in a form that reads as people’s-experience evidence.
Ongoing
6
The clinic / pharmacy boundary
Depends on how the relationship between the clinic and Montu Pharmacy is explained to patients — the report recorded confusion about it.
Ongoing
Evidence-ready before the follow-up lands
A responsive assessment with breach findings does not get to choose its re-assessment date. GreenM connects the remediation work a team has already done to the quality statements it will be scored against, so a year of real improvement reads as one — rather than being reassembled the week a visit is confirmed.
In 30 minutes: the six items above, narrowed to the three that matter first for the clinic.
