The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Vale Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Streatham Vale, London, SW16 5SE (020) 8679 7536

Provided and run by:
The Vale Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 18 May 2026 to 21 May 2026. The Vale surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 10,578 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that 46.7% people are White, 18.5% are Asian, 21.9% are Black, 7.3% Mixed and 5.7% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 5 decile (5 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. We have decided to carry out a comprehensive assessment as it has been 7 years since our last site visit.This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. However, staff, including clinicians, did not demonstrate sufficient understanding and application of legislation relating to mental capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

The service provided information people could understand, and people knew how to give feedback. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening and trust. Leaders were visible and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Improvements were required in the governance systems. We found concerns with administrative oversight of daily practice schedules which included some gaps in the system to monitor staff training, safe recruitment procedures and building maintenance such as completion of action plans recommended from risk assessments.

We found breaches of regulation in relation to need for consent (Regulation 11) and good governance (Regulation 17). We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

23 October 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. The practice was previously inspected in November 2015 and was rated as good overall. At the 2015 inspection the practice was rated as good for effective, caring, responsive and well led. It was rated as requires improvement for safe.

At this inspection the key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Vale Surgery on 23 October 2018.

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 had implemented defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • 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 area where the provider should make improvements is:

  • Review the availability of appointments on the basis of patient feedback.
  • Review how the practice identifies carers.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

03 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Vale Surgery on 03 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.

  • Risks to patients were assessed but not always well managed. There was no defibrillator on the premises on the day of inspection and no risk assessment had been completed. A Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check had not been carried out for a GP prior to employment. We saw that the practice implemented immediate action plans to rectify these issues.

  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned but not always delivered in line with relevant guidance and legislation; consent for examinations and discussions with patients were not always recorded but the practice took immediate actions to address this.

  • 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 good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients. Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. The practice had addressed less positive feedback from patients. Information about services and how to complain was available.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The practice had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity, but not all staff knew how to locate them.

  • The practice had access to but did not hold recruitment and training files on the premises for some staff members.

  • The practice held regular governance meetings where issues were discussed and appraisals were carried out for all members of staff. Not all staff had received mandatory training appropriate to their roles but further training needs had been identified or planned.

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

The provider should:

  • Ensure recruitment arrangements include DBS checks for all locum staff or a risk assessment for non-clinical staff.
  • Ensure all staff are aware of how to access policies and procedures.
  • Ensure details of examinations, discussions with patients and the process for seeking consent are documented.
  • Ensure all staff know how to use the defibrillator and all staff receive mandatory annual basic life support and safeguarding training.
  • Ensure copies of recruitment and training files and immunisation records for all staff are kept on the premises.
  • Ensure there is a cleaning schedule in place to ensure all equipment is cleaned.
  • Consider carrying out practice patient surveys to continuously monitor feedback and identify areas for improvement.
  • Ensure notices are available to inform patients of translation services available.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice