• Doctor
  • GP practice

Cloister Road Surgery Also known as Drs Robinska,Sillitoe and Dhall

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

41-43 Cloister Road, Acton, London, W3 0DF (020) 8992 4331

Provided and run by:
Cloister Road Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cloister Road 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 Cloister Road Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

20 August 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Cloister Road Surgery on 20 August 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Set out the ratings for each key question

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 21 August 2019 the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall and for the key questions Safe and Effective. The key questions Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Cloister Road Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

This inspection was a focused inspection on the key questions Safe, Effective and Well-led. It was also carried out to follow-up on breaches of Regulation 17 Good governance.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short 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.

We have rated this practice as Good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to improve childhood immunisation and cervical cancer screening uptake to bring in line with national targets.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

21 August 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions safe, effective, responsive and well-led. The rating for the key question caring would be carried through from the previous inspection. We carried out the previous inspection on 28 April 2016 and rated the practice as good overall.

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 have rated this practice as requires improvement overall and good overall for all population groups, with the exception of f amilies, children and young people and working age people (including those recently retired and students) which are rated as requires improvement.

We rated the practice as r equires improvement for providing safe and effective services because:

  • Blank prescription forms for use in printers and handwritten pads were not handled in accordance with national guidance.
  • The practice’s uptake of the childhood immunisations rates was below the national averages for three out of four immunisations measured.
  • The practice’s uptake of the national screening programme for cervical cancer was below the local and the national averages.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and report incidents and near misses. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

We rated the practice as good for providing responsive and well-led services because:

  • Feedback from patients reflected that they were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The practice was encouraging patients to register for online services and 40% of patients were registered to use online Patient Access.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • The practice was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by the management.
  • The practice had demonstrated good governance in most areas, however, they were required to make further improvements.

We rated all population groups as good for providing responsive services. We rated all population groups as good for providing effective services, with the exception of families, children and young people and working age people (including those recently retired and students) which are rated as requires improvement, because of low childhood immunisations and cervical cancer screening rates.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Keep fire safety processes under review.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

28 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cloister Road Surgery on 28 April 2016. 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 an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events. The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.

  • 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 areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and improve the management of people experiencing poor mental health to reduce the exception reporting.

  • Ensure the practice actively identifies and supports patients who are carers.

  • Review the provisions in place for patients to see a male GP.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice