• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr John O'Moore Also known as Upminster Bridge Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

126 Upminster Road, Hornchurch, Essex, RM12 6PL (01708) 440642

Provided and run by:
Dr John O'Moore

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr John O'Moore 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 Dr John O'Moore, you can give feedback on this service.

20 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr John O'Moore on 20 August 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.

14 August 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr John O’Moore on 5 May 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good, however the practice was rated requires improvement for providing effective care. The full comprehensive report on the May 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr John O’Moore on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 14 August 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 5 May 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

At the inspection on 5 May 2016 we found:

  • The exception reporting within four clinical domains was above both local and national averages.

  • The practice had undertaken some quality improvement activity but had not completed any two-cycle audits, where the information learnt had been used to improve patient care.

  • The practice had a robust strategy and supporting business continuity plan. However, it did not have a business plan.

At the inspection on 14 May 2017 we found improvements had been made. Overall the practice remains rated good. The practice is now rated as good for providing effective care.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Exception reporting rates for some clinical conditions were above average. However, the practice had investigated this and provided an acceptable explanation in this regard.

  • Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement.

  • The practice had produced a two year business plan which reflected the vision and values.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

5 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr John O’Moore on 5 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 and provided 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:

  • To investigate why its overall exception rates in some domains are higher than local and national averages.

  • To consider developing a business plan to show the goals for the development of the practice.

  • To carry out clinical audits including re-audits are completed to ensure improvements have been identified and achieved.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to people visiting the surgery on the day of our inspection. People told us they were happy with the service provided by the GP at the practice. One person said, 'the GP is very approachable and puts the children at ease when they see him.' Another person said, 'they have been great here. I haven't struggled to make an appointment and am very happy overall.'

We found that people's care was planned and delivered in a way that met their individual needs and that the practice co-operated with other healthcare professionals and services.

We also found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had procedures in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children and staff we spoke with were aware of these procedures.

People we spoke with told us that they were always able to get an appointment quickly and did not have problems getting an emergency appointment.

We found that people's privacy and dignity was respected in every case.

The provider had effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure only suitable staff were employed at the service.