The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Villa Street Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

47 Villa Street, London, SE17 2EL (020) 7703 7393

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

28 June 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Villa Street Medical Centre on 28 June 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.

8 December 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Villa Street Medical Centre on 8 December 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, however, not all partners meetings were minuted.
  • 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:

  • Amend the process for recording discussions of internal meetings.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

10 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who used the service and they were mostly positive about the care and treatment they received. We also spoke with representatives of the practice's patient participation group and they too were complimentary about the service provided to patients. One person we spoke with said, 'I can't fault the practice either for myself or my children. My experience of the service has been very good and I recommended the practice to my parents who have been very impressed with their efficiency.' Another person told us, 'everybody here has stood by me from day one and they are like a second family to me.'

People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care, were provided with clear information and understood the treatment and choices available.

Care was planned and delivered in way to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw up to date plans that set out people's care and treatment needs, identified potential risks to their health and showed their agreement was sought in the care and treatment provided.

There were appropriate procedures in place to protect people from abuse and staff knew how to identify and report signs of abuse.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and people were supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service provided. People who used the service gave feedback through patient surveys on service quality and delivery. The service had a patient participation group which provided support and advice to the practice on behalf of patients. The service had systems to manage and review incidents and complaints.