The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Sidcup Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Church Avenue, Sidcup, Kent, DA14 6BU (020) 8302 1114

Provided and run by:
Sidcup Medical Centre

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 23 April 2026 to 29 April 2026. Sidcup Medical Centre is a GP practice and delivers service to 30,683 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The main Surgery is located at 2 Church Avenue Sidcup Kent DA14 6BU, with 4 branches located at 231 Burnt Oak Lane Sidcup Kent DA15 9BQ, 63 Thanet Road Bexley Kent DA5 1AP, 19 Crook Log Bexleyheath Kent DA6 8DZ and 69 Station Road Sidcup Kent DA15. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic makeup of the patient population is 79.8% White, 9.1%% Asian, 5.7% Black 3.3% Mixed and 2.1% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 8th decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.
We carried out this assessment in response to concerns raised about the practice and due to the length of time since a last full comprehensive inspection.

This assessment was included as part of a pilot which looked at new and innovative ways of fulfilling CQC’s regulatory obligations. AI was used to support the creation of notes during some of the conversations, with human oversight and review to confirm factual accuracy. This was conducted with the consent of the provider and people interviewed.
The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. In most cases people were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and most risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Generally, managers made sure staff received training and appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.
We found breaches of regulation in relation to Regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Where patients didn’t have capacity, and staff took decisions about the patient’s care in their best interest, they involved those people who were important to the patient in the decision.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.
People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.
 

11 December 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced assessment of Sidcup Medical Centre on 11 December 2023. The assessment focused on the responsive key question.

Following our previous inspection on 6 July 2021 the practice was rated requires improvement for the responsive key question and good overall. The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sidcup Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The practice continues to be rated as good overall as this was the rating given at the last comprehensive inspection. However, we have now rated the responsive key question as requires improvement as a result of the findings of this focused assessment.

Safe - Good

Effective – Good

Caring – Good

Responsive – Requires improvement

Well-led - Good

Why we carried out this assessment

We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers. We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know colleagues are doing this while demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. In this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. These assessments of the responsive key question include looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

How we carried out the assessment

This assessment was carried out remotely. It did not include a site visit.

The process included:

  • Conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing.
  • Reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • Reviewing data we hold about the service
  • Seeking information/feedback from relevant stakeholders

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:

  • According to the National GP Patient Survey results the practice had continued to perform below national ‘access’ averages for questions about patient experience of getting through to the practice by phone, their experience of making an appointment, satisfaction with appointment times, and satisfaction with the appointments they were offered.
  • During the assessment process, the provider highlighted the efforts they are making or are planning to make to improve the responsiveness of the service for their patient population. The effect of these efforts are not yet reflected in patient feedback.

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

  • Continue to identify ways of improving patient satisfaction in relation to phone access and appointments.

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

06 July 2021

During a routine inspection

We carried out a review of Sidcup Medical Centre on 6 July 2021. We carried out this inspection to check if Crook Log Surgery, which merged with Sidcup Medical Centre in 1 April 2020 has become complaint with regulations, as the last inspection of that service had found it requires improvement, but the practice had remained in special measures.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Crook Log Surgery and Sidcup Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this review

This inspection was a comprehensive special measures follow up inspection.

We have rated this practice as Good overall, but requires improvement for providing responsive services and for providing services to the six population groups we inspect.

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 and the public.

How we carried out the review

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our reviews differently.

This review was carried out by carrying out short visits to each of the practice sites, requesting documentary evidence from the provider and carrying out interviews with staff remotely, or asking to complete questionnaires and return them to us.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

Ensure the care and treatment of patients is appropriate, meets their needs.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • to review the outcomes of health and safety assessments, take and record any necessary actions as required.
  • to continue monitoring patients’ health in relation to the use of medicines including high risk medicines with appropriate monitoring and clinical review prior to prescribing
  • to seek out and act on the experiences of people most likely to face inequalities in accessing services

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

14 September 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 Sidcup Medical Centre on 30 November 2016. The practice was rated good overall and requires improvement for providing services that were caring. The full comprehensive report from the November 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sidcup Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was an announced desk-based review carried out on 14 September 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the recommendations we made in our previous inspection on 14 September 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those recommendations made at our last inspection.

At our previous inspection undertaken on 30 November 2016, we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing caring services as:

  • The practice had only identified 61 patients (less than 1%) as having caring responsibilities.

The practice is now rated as good for the key question: Are services caring?

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had taken action in response to our recommendation. The practice had increased the numbers of patients on their carers register to 125 patients which equated to 1.37% of their 9134 patient list.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

30 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sidcup Medical Centre on 30 November 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 practice had identified 61 patients as carers which was below 1% of the practice list.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed the practice’s achievement was below the national averages for its satisfaction scores on consultations with GPs and nurses. For example: 68 % of patients said the last GP they spoke to was good at treating them with care and concern compared to the national average of 85%.
  • 76 % of patients said the GP was good at listening to them compared to the national average of 88%.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Improve the identification of carers to ensure their needs are known and can be met.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

24 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

On this occasion, we did not speak with people using the service as part of our inspection.

We found that the provider had made significant improvements and that staff files had been updated. There were policies and procedures in place to ensure that only suitable staff were recruited.

28 August 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we spent time at both GP surgeries in Church Avenue and Burnt Oak Lane, Sidcup. People we spoke with were generally happy with the treatment they received from the surgery. One person told us "I cannot talk highly enough about this practice" and another described the care they received as "excellent". We found that most people felt listened to by the GPs and felt the reception staff were very kind and helpful at the practice. People said they did not have difficulty getting through on the telephone or getting an appointment, and they were sometimes kept informed if the GP was running late with appointments.

Most people felt their personal information was kept private and they were treated with respect by all staff. One person said "the GP always listens to me and I am very happy with the care I receive". Another person told us that they had been coming to the practice for a very long time and usually saw the nurse and that they were reasonably happy with the service they received.

We found that people were involved in their care and people's needs were assessed. Care was planned and the treatment they received was documented in their medical records. There were child protection procedures in place and staff had been trained in both child and adult safeguarding procedures and there were policies and flow charts for safeguarding available for staff to refer to. The practice had systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was monitored. However, the practice did not have a robust system in place regarding recruitment and therefore had not taken steps to ensure only suitable people were employed at the service.