The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Norheads Lane Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

14A Norheads Lane, Biggin Hill, Westerham, Kent, TN16 3XS (01959) 574488

Provided and run by:
DR Nandita Sabharwal

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Norheads Lane Surgery on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Norheads Lane Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

16 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Norheads Lane Surgery on 16 August 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

2 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Norheads Lane Surgery on 2 August 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Clinical staff were aware of current evidence based guidance and had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and felt involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. The practice was rated above average for consultations with the nurse but comparable to or below the national average in some areas for consultations with a GP.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made as a result of learning from complaints and concerns.
  • A patient participation group (PPG) had been in operation in the practice since 2011. However, there were now only six members of the group and as they no longer held meetings, communication was carried out by email only.
  • Most patients we spoke with said they were usually able to make an appointment with a GP when they wanted one and urgent appointments were usually available the same day through the practice walk-in service.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • The provider should continue to monitor patient satisfaction rates regarding consultations with GPs and implement improvements as appropriate.
  • The provider should consider strategies to encourage patients to join the patient participation group (PPG) and establish regular communication with group members.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice