The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Mahreen Chawdhery Also known as 306 Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

3 Zero 6 Medical Centre, 306 Lordship Lane, London, SE22 8LY (020) 8693 4704

Provided and run by:
Dr Mahreen Chawdhery

All Inspections

28 September 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive/focused inspection) at Dr Mahreen Chawdhery. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe – good

Effective – good

Caring – good

Responsive – good

Well-led - good

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

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection in line with our inspection priorities.

How we carried out the inspection/review

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 using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • 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 found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm. This included in respect of safeguarding, medicine management and safety risk assessments.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way, which was reflected in the latest results of the National Patient Survey.
  • 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:

  • Take action to ensure medication reviews are fully documented on patients’ records and the process is embedded into clinical practice.

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 Health Care

26 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice


We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr Mahreen Chawdhery on 26 May 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.
  • 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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure that systems are in place for ongoing risk assessment of the medicines required to respond effectively in an emergency.

  • Should ensure that all staff are aware of practice safeguarding leads and the correct procedures for chaperoning.

  • Ensure that the practice’s business continuity plan contains emergency contact information for all staff working at the practice.

  • Undertake a programme of quality improvement to improve patient outcomes.

  • Review the training and support arrangements for the practice nurse to ensure that they receive adequate peer support from nurses within the locality.

  • Review ways to improve patient confidentiality for consultations that are carried out in the nurses room.

  • Ensure complaints responses follow practice policy and comply with requirements of The Local Authority Social Services and NHS Complaints (England) Regulations 2009.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

3 February 2014

During a routine inspection

Most people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and treatment they received when visiting the practice. We found people were treated with dignity and respect and individual needs were met in relation to their care and treatment.

We saw systems were in place to promote safe practice and continuity of care. Records we viewed detailed patients medical history, treatment and referrals made to a specialist. When patients came for a follow up appointments this was recorded on patient's records.

There were effective recruitment processes in place and appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The service provider took on board the views of people using the service to make improvements, for example updating the practice website regularly.

The practice had a process and policy for making a complaint. Information was displayed in the reception area to inform patients how to make a complaint and who to complain to.