The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Haling Park Partnership

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

96 Brighton Road, South Croydon, Surrey, CR2 6AD (020) 8688 0875

Provided and run by:
The Haling Park Partnership

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Haling Park Partnership 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 The Haling Park Partnership, you can give feedback on this service.

29 June 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Haling Park Partnership on 29 June 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.

25 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Haling Park Partnership on 25 August 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.
  • 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.

  • Data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) showed that in 2014/2015 patient outcomes were in line with local and national averages; however their exception reporting rate was higher than expected for some indicators.

  • 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 provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The area where the provider should make improvement is:

  • Review the exception reporting system for asthma, atrial fibrillation, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and peripheral arterial disease to improve patient engagement and outcomes.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice