You are here

Dr Ngozi Uduku Good Also known as Woodlands Health centre


Review carried out on 20 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Ngozi Uduku on 20 December 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.

Inspection carried out on 28/07/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Ngozi Uduku (Woodlands Health Centre) on 28 July 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.
  • Patient responses regarding getting a routine appointment and with a GP of their choice was mixed. However, patients told us there was continuity of care and 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:

  • Review the cleaning arrangements for the practice.
  • Review how carers are identified and recorded on the clinical system to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.
  • Continue to review the telephone and appointments system to ensure patients can access the surgery and get appointments in a timely manner.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 08/07/2014

During a routine inspection

Dr Ngozi Uduku, also known as the Woodlands Health Centre, is a single site practice that caters for over 7000 patients living in the Hither Green and Lewisham areas in South London. The practice serves a diverse and multicultural population with the highest proportion of its patients falling within the working age category.

We carried out the inspection on 8 July 2014. As part of the inspection we looked at all the regulated activities provided by the service which are diagnostic and screening, maternity and midwifery, surgical procedures, and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

We spoke to staff, patients and their relatives. We also spoke to other professionals involved in delivering integrated care such as district nurses, palliative care, pharmacists, health visitors and psychologists. We collected patient views through comments cards that were left at the practice two weeks prior to the inspection.

The practice had procedures to safeguard patients from harm. There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection, manage medicines, deal with emergencies and maintain the premises and equipment.

There were effective systems in place to ensure that staff followed national guidance and audited clinical practice. . There was a training and appraisal schedule for both clinical and non-clinical staff. The practice worked with other health care professionals to provide effective care for patients.

The practice was caring and patients were treated with dignity and respect. End of life care and bereavement support was provided or patients were signposted to local agencies where needed. Patients described clinical staff as attentive and reception staff as polite. We observed reception and clinical staff speaking to patients in a polite manner.

Staff told us that the managers and the lead GP were approachable and that there was an open and transparent culture. Staff were supported to develop and progress within their roles, including access to relevant courses or career pathways. The leadership ensured that patients and the Patient Participation Group were involved in the running of the practice.

The practice was responsive to the needs of the population it served. The premises was able to accommodate wheelchair user and provider interpreter services for patients for whom English was not their first language.  Extended opening hours were provided including a Saturday morning clinic every last Saturday of the month, for the working population.