The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Kings Park Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Gubbins Lane, Harold Wood, Romford, Essex, RM3 0FE (01708) 792000

Provided and run by:
Hurley Clinic Partnership

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

09 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced review at Kings Park Surgery on 9 June 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 11 November 2019 the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions except for Well-led which was rated as Requires Improvement.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Kings Park Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this review:

This was a review of information without undertaking a site visit inspection, to follow up on the areas identified as requiring improvement at our last inspection. At the previous inspection on 11 November 2019, Kings Park Surgery was issued a Requirement Notice for a breach of Regulation 17(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 Regulations 2014, regarding Good Governance as the practice did not always have clear and effective processes for managing risks, issues and performance. The Well-led key question was reviewed to ensure that appropriate action had been taken by the provider, to meet the fundamental standards of health and social care.

How we carried out the review:

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our reviews differently.

This review was carried out in a way which enabled us to request information from the provider without the needs for a site visit. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • Speaking with the management team, as required.

Our findings:

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 service had clear and effective processes for managing risks, issues and performance.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

11 November to 11 November 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Harold Wood Polyclinic on 11 November 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service following our annual review of the information available to us.

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, with the exception of well-led which we rated as requires improvement.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing well-led services because:

  • The service did not always have clear and effective processes for managing risks, issues and performance. For example, oversight of clinical practice of the advanced nurse/medical practitioners and the system for the storage of vaccines.

We rated the practice as good for providing safe, effective, caring and responsive services, and for all the population groups because:

  • The service’s systems and process for safeguarding kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • 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 ensured staff had completed the necessary training for their role.
  • The service had the necessary information to deliver safe care.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

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

  • Continue to ensure childhood immunisations rates meet World Health Organisation (WHO) targets.

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

1 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Harold Wood Polyclinic on 1 March 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.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • 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.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice