The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Newton Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

14-18 Newton Road, London, W2 5LT (020) 7229 4578

Provided and run by:
Newton 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 Newton 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 Newton Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

19 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Newton Medical Centre on 19 October 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.

1 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection in January 2016– Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe – Good

Are services effective – Good

Are services caring – Good

Are services responsive – Good

Are services well-led - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Newton Medical Centre on 1 November 2017 to check that action had been taken to comply with the requirement notice we served for regulation 12 (Safe Care) and regulation 19 (Fit and Proper Person Employed) at our last inspection in January 2016.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review processes to improve children’s immunisation uptake.
  • Ensure patients with caring responsibilities are proactively identified and supported.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Newton Medical Centre on 14 January 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. However, the practice recognised that clinical meetings needed to be minuted to provide documentary evidence of discussion of lessons learned and agreed decisions and action.
  • Risks to patients who used services were assessed and managed. However, the systems and processes to address these risks were not implemented well enough to ensure patients were kept safe. There were some shortfalls in safeguarding training and in the practice’s recruitment processes.
  • 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 appropriate facilities and equipment 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 complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure all GP and nursing staff are trained in safeguarding children to the appropriate level in accordance with national guidance and address gaps in training in the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

  • Ensure all appropriate pre-employment reference checks are carried out and recorded in staff records.

In addition, the areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure clinical meetings are minuted to provide an audit trail of discussion and agreed decisions and actions.
  • Produce a written cleaning schedule to show work completed and record monitoring checks.
  • Organise and document regular fire drills.
  • Display information in the patient waiting area about:

How to complain; and

The practice’s vision and values.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three patients during our visit. All patients were satisfied with the service they received. One patient said they "cannot fault the surgery or the staff'." Two patients stated that their GP gave them choices and information and one patient stated that she always felt involved in her own care. People's needs were assessed and their care was planned in a way to ensure their safety and welfare.

There was a procedure for dealing with medical emergencies and emergency equipment was available.

Patients were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were suitable systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received. We looked at people's comments on the NHS Choices website. We saw that all comments had been reviewed by the provider. The annual patient survey was available on the practice website and there was also a link to the NHS Choices website as well as information on joining the Patient Participation Group (PPG).