The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Penrose Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

33 Penrose Street, Walworth, London, SE17 3DW (020) 7703 3677

Provided and run by:
Dr Sarah Hawxwell and Mr Sunil Gupta

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Penrose 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 Penrose Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

17 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Penrose Surgery on 17 January 2020. 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 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Penrose Surgery on 22 June 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 with the exception of patient letters initially being reviewed and coded by administrative staff instead of clinical staff.
  • 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; however some of the patients we spoke to indicated that they had to wait nearly two weeks to get a regular appointment.
  • 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had an in-house pharmacist who ran regular medicines review clinics for patients with long term conditions, reviewed medicines for patients who had unplanned admissions and also checked all repeat prescriptions to ensure safe prescribing.

There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Review the practice procedures to ensure the recording of significant events and lessons learnt are improved.
  • Review practice procedures for reading and reviewing patient letters so they are safe and decisions are made by clinical staff.
  • Review how they identify and record patients with caring responsibilities to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice