The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Riverside Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

48 Worthing Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1UD

Provided and run by:
Davies and Patel

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Riverside Medical Practice 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 Riverside Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

11 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Riverside Medical Practice on 11 February 2020. 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.

6 December 2019 to 6 December 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Riverside Surgery on 6 December 2018 as part of our inspection programme. This was the first inspection of this service since registration on 15 May 2018.

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 have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • 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.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. 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.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • Staff worked well together as a team and all felt supported to carry out their roles. There was a strong team ethos and culture of working together for a common aim.
  • The practice had utilised the care coordinator role to good effect in the practice. Vulnerable patients and their families could self-refer or be referred by a team member. Evidence we saw demonstrated positive outcomes for patients who had participated in this service.

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

  • Review and introduce sepsis and acutely unwell patient protocols and training to support the practice reception team.
  • Review the current level of feedback from the secondary care anti-coagulation service to seek reassurances for practice clinicians, as the accountable prescribers, that patients are receiving blood tests at the correct intervals.

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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice