The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

St Ann's Road Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

256 St Anns Road, London, N15 5AZ (020) 8800 4032

Provided and run by:
AT Medics Limited

All Inspections

23 November 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out unannounced focused inspection at St Ann's Road Surgery on 23 November 2022 to follow up on concerns received regarding the practice. We looked at the Well-led key question to review elements of the overall running of the practice.

Safe - not inspected

Effective - not inspected

Caring - not inspected

Responsive - not inspected

Well-led – inspected but not rated

Following our previous inspection on 31 October 2017, the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection to follow up concerns reported to us. We looked at a range of issues. These included clinical staffing arrangements and appointment capacity. We reviewed appointment triaging processes and discussed the workplace culture with staff. We did not identify any breaches of regulation during our inspection. This report is not rated and does not change the current ratings held by the practice.

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included

  • Conducting staff interviews.
  • Reviewing staff rotas.
  • Reviewing policies.
  • 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 found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • 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-centre care.

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

  • Review the effectiveness of staff training, to be assured that learning is embedded.

  • Review the way telephone contacts with patients are captured, to be assured that potential issues of concern are recorded on the patient record.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

31 October 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? - Good

Are services effective? - Good

Are services caring? - Good

Are services responsive? - Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People - Good

People with long-term conditions - Good

Families, children and young people - Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students - Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable - Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Ann’s Road Surgery on 31 October 2017. We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether St Ann’s Road Surgery was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The practice had strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.
  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes and worked with other local and national healthcare providers to share best practice.
  • The practice used information technology systems to monitor and improve the quality of care. The electronic dashboard used across the provider group was an effective tool for understanding the practice's comparative performance across a range of clinical indicators and had provided access to bespoke searches relevant to medicines management and effective care. This enabled the practice to readily identify when follow up tests and screening were due in the management of patients with long term conditions.
  • The practice had used innovative and proactive methods to assure effective communication across the organisation. For example, the practice had initiated an online networking tool to share learning, information, ideas including social events and peer support. The provider was using this online tool to monitor the performance and utilising the resources, such as, managing the winter pressure or when the demand increased for appointments. The provider had sent the weekly and monthly staff bulletins. This provided them with any information about the practice including clinical updates, staffing matters, training opportunities and any changes within the practice group. An interactive on-line messaging system, ‘message my GP’ was available for patients to direct non-urgent queries to a GP with a response turnaround of up to 48 hours.
  • Staff had access to a learning and development portfolio featuring face-to-face and web-based training programs tailored for each staff role. For example, fortnightly web-based training for healthcare assistants; development support for practice nurses; a development programme for practice managers and pharmacists and a fortnightly consultant led learning program for clinicians.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice