• Doctor
  • GP practice

Brunswick Park Family Practice Also known as Dr Patel practice at St gilesSsurgery

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

40 St Giles Road, Camberwell, London, SE5 7RF (020) 7740 4720

Provided and run by:
Brunswick Park Family Practice

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of inspection: 8 and 9 October 2025. Brunswick Park Family Practice is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 7,600 people under a contract held with NHS England. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 3rd decile (3 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. This inspection 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.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. 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 any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes in most cases. However, we saw that some medicines were not monitored in line with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) or other relevant guidelines.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs in most cases. However, we saw that people with diabetes were not consistently diagnosed or treated in line with NICE or other relevant guidelines. 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. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity. The service was not able to demonstrate cyclical audit showing improving outcomes for people.

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.

There are breaches of Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to medicines optimisation, assessing need and monitoring and improving outcomes. The provider will be required to submit an action plan detailing how these breaches of regulation will be addressed.

18/08/2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Giles Surgery (Dr J Rosemen) on 18 August 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 the practice is registered for the regulated activity maternity and midwifery services to cover the post-natal care provided by the practice.
  • Ensure the guidelines for the correct segregation and disposal of sharps waste is followed to ensure compliance with legislation.
  • Ensure blank prescriptions are tracked through the practice in line with national guidance.
  • Ensure all staff know how to access clinical protocols relevant to their role.
  • Review how carers are identified and recorded on the clinical system to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.
  • Formulate a written strategy to deliver the practice’s vision.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 April 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to determine if the provider had taken action to rectify the issues that were found at the previous inspection of this practice in February 2014.

On this visit we saw that the gaps in recruitment documentation for one member of staff had been resolved. We also saw that the emergency drugs, which were out of date when we visited in February, had been replaced.

On this occasion we did not speak with people who used the service.

31 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with a number of patients. They were all satisfied with the information and support they were given by their doctor (GP). They felt that the GP gave them enough time during their consultation, and listened to what they had to say. One patient told us, 'I have been coming here for years. The GP and the nurse listen and keep me informed'. Another patient said, 'I am treated well by my doctor, he listens'.

Patients were able to make appointments in advance, and could telephone or visit the practice in person to make an appointment. One patient told us, 'it is easy to get an appointment; I just have to phone in'. Another patient told us, 'I can phone for an appointment. Even if they are full the staff will always try to fit you in'.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies, but these were not satisfactory. We found a number of the emergency drugs kept at the practice were out of date.

Staff were able to demonstrate they had a knowledge of safeguarding policies and procedures and they knew what to do if they had any concerns.

The practice had some recruitment procedures in place however these were not robust enough as not all staff had been appropriately vetted before starting work.

The practice had a number of systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, including facilitating a patient participation group.