The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Drs E Greenbury & J Rosenthal Also known as Park Road Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Park Road Surgery, 153 Park Road, Hornsey, London, N8 8JJ (020) 8340 7940

Provided and run by:
Drs E Greenbury & J Rosenthal

All Inspections

16 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 16 March 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.
  • 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. However, results from the GP patient survey suggested that fewer patients compared with local and national averages were happy with the opening hours.
  • 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.
  • Risks to patients were generally assessed and well managed. The practice had not carried out Disclosure and Barring Service checks in relation to non-clinical staff who performed chaperoning duties and had no portable oxygen supply for use in medical emergencies. However, the practice provided evidence shortly after the inspection that both these issues had been addressed.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Continue to monitor the service provision, particularly with regard to patient access and opening hours.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

2 May 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This visit was a follow up to our inspection of the 6 November 2013, when we found that the provider was failing to comply with regulations 12 and 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. Regulation 12 requires that providers ensure people who use services, staff and visitors to healthcare premises are protected against identifiable risks of acquiring healthcare associated infections. We found that staff did not have up to date training relating to infection control and annual infection control audits had not been completed regularly. Regulation 19 requires that providers must have in place an effective system for identifying, receiving, handling and responding to complaints and comments made by people who use services. We found that records of complaints and the way that complaints were dealt with did not accord with the practice's complaints policy and some complaints had not been responded to within the expected timescales.

Following our inspection in November 2013, the provider sent us a plan of the actions intended to meet the requirements of the regulation. At this inspection, we checked that the actions had been implemented. We spoke with the practice manager and clinical and administrative staff and inspected documents and records relating to infection control procedures and complaints handling at the practice.

We found that the practice had carried out an infection control audit following our inspection and implemented the actions identified as necessary. Arrangements had been made for the audits to be carried out twice a year. Suitable training had been arranged for the infection control lead and the training was to be passed on to other staff.

The complaints procedure had been revised and appropriate information was provided to people using the service on how to submit comments and complaints. We saw that complaints were being recorded and dealt with appropriately and in accordance with the procedure.

The action taken by the provider was appropriate and sufficient to comply with the regulations.

6 November 2013

During a routine inspection

This surgery is also known as Park Road Surgery and is one of two practices which are run by the same group of partners in north London. The partners are Dr Greenbury, Dr J Rosenthal, Dr D Rosenthal and Dr Skoro-Kondza. We visited Park Road Surgery and spoke with seven patients who were attending the surgery when our inspection took place. All the patients we spoke with were very positive in their praise of the practice and of the GPs who worked there. One person told us "I think it's [the practice] wonderful" and another person said "I wish everyone in the country had a practice like this where we are looked after and treated decently".

People told us that they were involved in decisions about their care and that they felt able to ask questions about their treatment. People felt they were treated with respect and dignity by clinical and non-clinical staff. One person said "[the receptionist] treats us with a smile". People told us they were able to access appointments when they needed them.

We saw the practice had equipment, training and appropriate medicines to ensure that emergencies were dealt with appropriately.

Care and treatment was provided in a clean and hygienic environment, however staff did not have up to date training relating to infection control and annual infection control audits had not been completed regularly. All the staff we spoke with told us that they felt supported by their managers and had access to relevant and frequent training in area related to their roles and had annual appraisals.

The practice sought the opinions of patients and undertook regular surveys. They used the results of surveys and discussions with patient groups to inform the design of services. We saw that the practice logged serious incidents and ensured that learning resulted from these. However, we found that records of complaints and the way that complaints were dealt with did not align with the practice's complaints policy and some complaints had not been responded to within the expected timescales.