You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Valley Road Surgery on 9 September 2021. 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 Valley Road Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 5 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Valley Road Surgery on 5 December 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.

Inspection carried out on 9 October 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. The practice was previously inspected in November 2014 and was rated as good overall.

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 Valley Road Surgery on 9 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 that 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.

We saw two areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice in conjunction with its patient participation group (PPG) had set up a group to assist older people in registering for online services. Three workshops had seen more than 100 patients register.
  • The practice in conjunction with its PPG had conducted a survey and determined that patient loneliness was an issue among older patients. In conjunction with the practice the group set up a chair exercise group. The group reported that they were in the process of auditing the efficacy of this, in the interim, feedback from patients had been positive.

The area where the provider should make improvements is:

  • Improve systems to ensure prescription security.

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.

Inspection carried out on 10 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Valley Road Surgery provides a GP service to just over 5,000 patients in the south west area of Lambeth in south London. This is the provider’s only location.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 10 November 2014. The inspection took place over one day by a lead inspector and a GP specialist advisor. Overall the practice is rated as good. Specifically, we found the practice to be good at providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led services. It was also good for providing services for all population groups.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • We found the practice was caring. Patients felt their privacy and dignity were respected, that they received appropriate care and treatment and that the doctors and nurses explained any treatment to them clearly. Patients said the repeat prescription process worked for them.
  • We found the practice was safe with suitable systems in place to deal with medical emergencies, to monitor infection control, to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm and to recruit staff.
  • We found the practice was effective. Staff were up to date with best practice guidance. The GPs had areas of responsibility. Data showed the outcomes for patients were at or above the local average. Suitable systems were in place to work with other health and social care providers.
  • We found the practice was responsive to the needs of patients. They used information from patient surveys, comments and complaints to improve the services provided. The practice was accessible to people with mobility problems, those who used a wheelchair and pushchairs. There was a range of in advance and on the day appointments and home visits provided when required, however some patients said they experienced difficulties getting appointments, particularly with their GP of choice.

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

Importantly, the provider must:

  • Ensure all clinicians have completed child protection training to Level 3.

In addition the provider should:

  • Ensure patient safety alerts are shared with relevant staff in a timely manner;
  • Improve system for checking medicines to ensure medicines past their use by date are disposed of promptly;
  • Review the cleaning schedule to include all areas of the practice;
  • Ensure clinical staff, particularly the GPs receive training in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice