The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Longrove Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

70 Union Street, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 4HT (020) 8370 6660

Provided and run by:
Longrove Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

18 March 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive – Good

Well-led - Good

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Longrove Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Longrove Surgery as part of our inspection programme.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the 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 inspections differently. This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements. This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • Short site visit

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 have rated this practice as ‘Good’ overall.

We found that:

  • The clinical docman system had a backlog due to staff shortages.
  • The performance for childhood immunisations and cervical screening was below national performance targets.
  • The number of patients identified as carers was below the national target.
  • The service had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the provider learned from them and improved their systems.
  • The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of care the provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
  • The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • The service had systems in place to collect and analyse feedback from patients.
  • There was a clear leadership structure to support good governance and management.

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

  • Continue to reduce the backlog on the clinical docman system and review the fail-safe process to ensure a backlog does not reoccur.
  • Look at ways to increase the number of patients identified as carers.
  • Continue to increase the uptake for cervical screening and childhood immunisations.

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

15 August 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service on 15 August 2019 following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions (Effective, Responsive and Well led).

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.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective services because:

  • People had good outcomes as a result of receiving effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Information about people’s care and treatment was routinely collected, monitored and acted upon.

We rated the practice as good for providing responsive services because:

  • Leaders were aware of low satisfaction scores on choice of appointment and could show evidence of improvement activity aimed at ensuring people could access the right care at the right time.

We rated the practice as good for providing well-led services because:

  • The culture of the practice and the way it was led and managed drove the delivery and improvement of high-quality, person-centred care.
  • Clinical and internal audit processes functioned well and had a positive impact in relation
  • to quality governance, with clear evidence of action to resolve concerns.

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

We found that:

  • Clinical audit was routinely carried out and was used to drive improvements in patient outcomes.
  • Accurate and up-to-date information about effectiveness was discussed, used and understood by staff.
  • The provider routinely monitored access to the service and took action as necessary, to ensure people could receive care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The service was tailored to meet the needs of individual people and was delivered in a way to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.
  • Governance arrangements supported the delivery of high-quality person-centred care and there was an effective process in place to identify, monitor and address risks (for example relating to staffing levels, safeguarding and medicines management).
  • People who used the service told us the provider actively involved them in service improvements.

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

  • Continue to undertake periodic water temperature monitoring to mitigate against risks associated with the Legionella bacterium.
  • Continue to monitor and take action to improve low scores on the extent to which patients were satisfied with the type of appointment they were offered.

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

9 March 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Longrove Surgery on 9 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • In 2015, in response to low patient satisfaction ratings for opening hours, the practice created a independent nurse prescriber walk in clinic supported by a duty GP. The clinic aimed to manage ‘on the day’ appointment demand and enabled patients with a minor illness to be seen by a nurse prescriber or (if they had more complex medical needs); a GP. In early 2016 an audit of the effectiveness of the nurse led clinic was undertaken. The audit found that over 400 patients had been seen over a 5 week period; that 89% of patients were seen by nurses, and that 88% of patients were seen within an hour. Patient feedback has been positive. Patients can access appointments and services in a way and at a time that suits them.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice