The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Churchill Clinic Also known as CMG Healthcare

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

94 Churchill Avenue, Chatham, Kent, ME5 0DL (01634) 842397

Provided and run by:
The Churchill Clinic

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 Churchill Clinic 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 Churchill Clinic, you can give feedback on this service.

11 February 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Churchill Clinic on 11 February 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.

31 January 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Churchill Clinic on 31 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There were comprehensive systems to keep people safe, which take account of current best practice. The whole team was engaged in reviewing and improving safety and safeguarding systems.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • Constructive challenge from people who use services, the public and stakeholders was welcomed by the practice and seen as a vital way of holding services to account.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Continue to monitor and ensure the system for recording the use of local anaesthetic is effective.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

9 December 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Churchill Clinic on 9 December 2014. During the inspection we gathered information from a variety of sources. For example, we spoke with patients, members of the patient participation group (PPG), interviewed staff of all levels and checked that the right systems and processes were in place.

Overall the practice is rated as good. This is because we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for all patient population groups.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Patients’ said they felt safely cared for and had no concerns about their care or treatment.
  • Staff were helpful, caring and considerate to patients’ needs.
  • Patients felt listened to and their opinions about care and treatment were acted upon.
  • The environment was safe and always cleaned to a high standard.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. All opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.
  • The practice used innovative and proactive methods to improve patient outcomes, working with other local providers to share best practice. For example, the findings of an audit of patients with mental health illness and their access to community mental health services showed that patients were receiving a poor service. The lead GP met with the mental health community service provider and care plans for these patients were developed and access to community support for these patients has improved.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Information was provided to help patients understand the care available to them.
  • The practice implemented suggestions for improvements and made changes to the way it delivered services as a consequence of feedback from patients and from the patient participation group (PPG).
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The practice had a clear vision which had quality and safety as its top priority. A business plan was in place, was monitored and regularly reviewed and discussed with all staff.

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

Importantly the provider should:

  • Review the privacy offered by consultation rooms to further patients confidentiality.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice