Sidcup Medical Centre

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

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

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

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.

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.