• Doctor
  • GP practice

Bincote Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

11 Bincote Road, Enfield, Middlesex, EN2 7RD (020) 8363 0585

Provided and run by:
Bincote 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 Bincote 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 Bincote Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

14 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Bincote Surgery on 14 August 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

22 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bincote Surgery on 22 September 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.

  • We spoke with 20 members of the practice’s patient participation group (PPG) and reviewed 41 patient Care Quality Commission comment cards. Patients fed back that they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.

  • 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.

  • 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 an area of outstanding practice:

  • The PPG met regularly and submitted proposals for improvements to the practice management team. For example, following PPG feedback, a men’s health initiative presentation had been delivered; offering information and advice on a range of issues affecting men’s health. We were told that more than thirty patients had attended and we noted that the presentation notes were available for download from the practice website.

However there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Ensure that emergency medicines are stored in a location which is readily accessible.

  • Consider introducing a standard practice protocol for two week referrals, in cases of suspected cancer (as per national guidelines).

We previously inspected this location in 2014 and at that stage the practice was not rated.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

29 May and 2 June 2014

During a routine inspection

Bincote Surgery is located in the London Borough of Enfield, North London. The practice provides primary medical services to approximately 5,800 patients and is situated in a large, converted, semi-detached house.  The practice is registered to provide diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, surgical procedures and treatment of disease and disorder or injury.

We carried out an announced inspection on 29 May and 2 June 2014. During our inspection we spoke with GPs, the practice nurse, practice manager and reception staff. We also spoke with patients (including patient participation group (PPG) members) and reviewed policies and procedures documentation. We reviewed completed patient comment cards which had been made available to patients in the two weeks prior to our inspection.

Patients spoke positively about how they were treated by clinical and administrative staff. They told us that GPs were compassionate and that the practice listened to and acted on patient concerns. Comment card feedback emphasised the high standard of care that patients felt they received. However, some patients told us they felt that space in the practice was limited.

The practice had systems in place to report and learn from incidents and protect patients from the risk of infection. Staff had received training in how to respond to emergencies and training in child protection and safeguarding vulnerable adults.

Systems to monitor and improve care required some improvement including completing the clinical audit cycle. Staff had not received appraisals but told us they had supervision.

The service had some services in place to respond to the needs of the different population groups who used the practice. For example, patients diagnosed with depression were referred to a weekly counselling service at the practice and we noted that a Saturday surgery was held for patients with long term conditions.