• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Rozewicz & Partners Also known as Simpson House Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

255-255a Eastcote Lane, Harrow, Middlesex, HA2 8RS (020) 8864 3466

Provided and run by:
Dr Rozewicz & Partners

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 11/11/2025 to 13/11/2025.

We carried out this announced comprehensive assessment in line with our inspection priorities. We reviewed all key questions and quality statements as part of this assessment. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Dr Rozewicz Partners, also known as Simpson House Medical Centre, is a GP practice and delivers service to approximately 10,400 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnicity of the practice population is 46% Asian, 31% White, 10% Black, 4% Mixed and 9% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 7th decile (7 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. 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.

 

SAFE: 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 training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

EFFECTIVE: 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. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. The service took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity and involved the person’s family (or other advocates) if appropriate.

CARING: 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.

RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. 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. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

WELL-LED: Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable 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. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

21 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Rozewicz and Partners (also known as Simpson House Medical Centre) on 21 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • The governance framework supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care, although arrangements to monitor and improve quality of services needed to be strengthened in areas.

  • Although there were translation services provided, there were no notices displayed in the practice informing patients this service was available. This was quickly addressed.

  • The arrangements for managing medicines, including emergency medicines and vaccines, in the practice kept patients safe. Prescription pads had not been stored securely but this was quickly addressed.

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect, but some said they were not always able to get appointments when they needed them.

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.

  • There were effective systems in place to safeguard vulnerable adults and children. Two of the management staff had received level 4 child safeguarding training.

  • The practice had a system in place to identify carers. There was effective joint working with the patient participation group (PPG) and an external organisation to undertake carers' events such as hosting a monthly coffee morning.

  • 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.

  • The practice’s Simpson Spectator quarterly newsletter, developed by the PPG together with the practice, was available in easy read format.

  • There was a staff recognition programme in place which allowed practice staff and patients to nominate and recognise an individual staff member for their achievements.

  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

In addition, the provider should:

  • Monitor the new prescriptions security policy to ensure all staff are aware of it, and that it is being adhered to.

  • Monitor and improve patient satisfaction regarding access to appointments and contacting the practice by telephone.

  • Monitor and improve performance, specifically patient outcomes in relation to the Quality and Outcomes Framework and cervical screening.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice