The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Higham Hill Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

258-260 Higham Hill Road, Walthamstow, London, E17 5RQ (020) 8527 2677

Provided and run by:
Higham Hill Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Higham Hill Medical Centre 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 Higham Hill Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

21 September 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Higham Hill Medical Centre on 21 September 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

The ratings for each key question are as follows:-

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous focused inspection on 11 December 2019, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall and for key questions Effective and Well-Led. At the December 2019 inspection, breaches of regulatory requirements were identified, and the practice was issued with requirement notices under Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activity) 2014.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection which included a remote clinical records review and a site visit, to ensure that the practice had complied with the requirement notice issues to them as a result of the December 2019 inspection. We also followed up on any ‘shoulds’ that were identified at our previous inspection in December 2019 and found that these had been addressed.

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 and telephone 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
  • A 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 and good for all population groups except people with long-term conditions.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Staff treated patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of good quality, person-centre care.
  • Quality improvement and clinical audit activity led to the practice reviewing and improving on existing systems in place.
  • There were processes in place to manage risk, issues and performance.

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

  • Continue with programme of recall to improve on the uptake of childhood immunisations.
  • Continue improvement of systems around monitoring of patients with long-term conditions to ensure these patients are receiving appropriate and timely monitoring.
  • Clarify who the Freedom to Speak Up Guardian is within the practice.
  • Maintain oversight of required annual training to be completed by staff.

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

11 December 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection of this service on 11 December 2019 following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the las inspection. This inspection focused on the following key questions: Effective 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 Requires Improvement overall

We rated the practice as requires improvement overall for providing effective services and requires improvement for all population groups because:

  • There was an ineffective system for keeping clinicians up to date with current guidelines.
  • There was limited evidence of shared learning including for clinical audits.
  • The system for managing medicine reviews for patients on repeat medicines was not effective.
  • The failsafe system for monitoring two-week wait cancer referrals was not effective.
  • The practices uptake of childhood immunisations was below the national target.
  • Uptake for cervical cytology was below the national target.

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

  • The practice had no formal strategy to achieve their priorities.
  • Systems to manage risks were not effective, including monitoring two-week ait cancer referrals.
  • There was an ineffective system to share learning in the practice.
  • There was limited overall clinical oversight.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to work to improve childhood immunisation and cervical cytology uptake.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

19 October 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Higham Hill Medical Centre on 19 October 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 areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure that all staff members complete fire training.
  • Review the GP patient satisfaction survey and put a plan in place to improve patient satisfaction with services provided.
  • Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified and recorded on the clinical system to ensure information, advice and support is available to them.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice