The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Petersfield Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

70 Petersfield Avenue, Harold Hill, Romford, Essex, RM3 9PD (01708) 347105

Provided and run by:
Petersfield 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 Petersfield 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 Petersfield Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

22 May 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Petersfield Surgery on 22 May 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.

18 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Petersfield Surgery on 18 January 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 an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice annually reviewed all significant events and complaints to identify trends and ensure systems are in place to limit the opportunity for reoccurrence.
  • 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 did not restrict the number of issues patients could raise in one appointment.
  • Patients that walked in without an appointment were seen on the same day. The practice operated a policy that no patient would be turned away without being seen.
  • 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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure its own policy in relation to recording the use of chaperones in patients’ notes is adhered to.

  • Monitor higher than average exception reporting rates for patients with diabetes and mental health concerns.

  • Review the two-week referral process to ensure the revised procedure provides an sufficient failsafe to identify missed referrals.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice