• Doctor
  • GP practice

Greengate Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

497 Barking Road, Plaistow, London, E13 8PS (020) 8471 7160

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

20 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Greengate Medical Centre on 20 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.

3 October 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Greengate Medical Centre on 14 March 2016. The overall rating for the practice was requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the March 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for the Greengate Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was undertaken and was an announced comprehensive inspection on 3 October 2017. Overall the practice is now 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.
  • The practice was 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

The practice had undertaken initiatives and staff training to engage compassionately and effectively with patients from specific groups including those with English as a second language, from the Roma community, homeless patients, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) patients. Patient’s uptake of important preventative breast and bowel cancer screening had improved significantly following practice staff engagement work for patients with English as a second language and were comparatively higher than average as a result.

However, there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Review fire escape arrangements for people with a mobility impairment.
  • Continue to monitor and take action to improve patient feedback including GP Patient survey results and regarding telephone access and appointments.
  • Monitor and ensure good uptake rates for health checks for people with a learning disability.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Greengate Medical Centre on 14 March 2016. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • The practice list was at or beyond the capacity of the premises and the waiting room was cramped with patients often queuing outside the door. However, the partners had taken steps to extend the premises.
  • Emergency equipment and cleaning schedules were not in place but the practice was clean.
  • The practice used information such as patient safety alerts, best practice clinical guidance and completed audits to improve quality and manage risk.
  • The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity but there were some gaps in important areas such as infection control, medicines management and elements of staff safety training.
  • The practice did not have effective arrangements for receiving and acting on complaints.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had role specific skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Data from the National GP Patient Survey showed patients rated the practice as comparable for most areas of care except patients’ access and practice nurses care.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • There was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day and the practice had facilities 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 must make improvements are:

  • Implement effective arrangements for receiving and acting on complaints.
  • Ensure appropriate safety training for all staff in accordance with their role including fire safety, infection control and safeguarding.
  • Introduce a system for the production of Patient Specific Directions for Health Care Assistants to administer injectable medicines after specific training when a doctor or nurse are on the premises.
  • Implement a system to ensure reference and DBS checks for non-clinical staff or an appropriate DBS risk assessment. (DBS checks identify whether a person has a criminal record or is on an official list of people barred from working in roles where they may have contact with children or adults who may be vulnerable).

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Monitor and improve QOF performance for people with mental health problems.
  • Implement effective systems to check and maintain emergency medicines and equipment, premises and equipment cleaning and infection control.
  • Review systems for managing significant events including the procedure.
  • Ensure delivery of premises improvements.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

27 February 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

The provider had not ensured that suitable arrangements were in place to ensure that people received care and support that took account of their disability and ensured they were shown dignity and respect by all staff at all times. One person said 'receptionists are rude and unhelpful'.

The provider had relevant paperwork in place to record people's consent. However, people's consent was not consistently obtained and their capacity assessed in relation to the care and support they received.

People's needs were assessed and delivered in line with their treatment plan and other professionals were involved in people's care. People 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. The premises were safe and suitable for carrying out the service provided.

The provider did not have in place sufficiently strong arrangements to assess and monitor the quality of service. Some audits were carried out but it was unclear how these had helped the service to effectively manage risk and to learn from what people fed-back to them, making changes and improvements to the service as a result. Complaints were not well managed.

The service provided minor surgery to both NHS and private patients.