The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Forest Road Group Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Forest Primary Care, London, N9 7HD (020) 8344 4550

Provided and run by:
Forest Road Group Practice

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

15 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection March 2016 – rated as Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Forest Road Group Practice on 15 November 2017 as part of our routine inspection programme.

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 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.

  • Most patients found the appointment system easy to use however some said that they found it difficult to access the practice by telephone. This is something the practice was asware of and was taking steps to address the issue. Patients were generally able to access care when they needed it.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.

  • 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.

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure all patients that are carers are identified and supported.

  • Continue to work to improve phone access and appointment allocation to patients at the practice.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Forest Road Group Practice on 21 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. However there was no system for checking medicines carried in doctor’s bags for home visits.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had 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.
  • There was a system for obtaining patient consent; however consent was not always sought for child immunisations when it was not the parent that presented the child for the immunisation.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there were 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Produce a log for checking the medicines and equipment in the GP home visit bags.

  • Ensure that consent is sought for child immunisations if a relative other than the parent brings the child.

  • Ensure all patients that are carers are identified and supported.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

28 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Forest Road Group Practice is a single site, five partner training practice that caters for over 12200 patients living in the London borough of Enfield. The percentage of older people affected by income deprivation is higher in Enfield than the England average. The practice organises several clinics for the management of chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes. They offer a variety of other medical services including antenatal and postnatal care, minor surgery, childhood vaccinations and well-person check-ups.

On the day of our visit we spoke to staff, patients and their relatives. Prior to our inspection we spoke to other professionals involved in delivering integrated care such as care home managers, palliative care, safeguarding lead nurse, health visitors and pharmacy. We also collected patient views through comments cards that were left at the practice two weeks prior to the inspection.

As part of the inspection we looked at all the regulated activities provided by the service which are diagnostic and screening, family planning, maternity and midwifery, surgical procedures, and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The practice provided some minor surgery and had adequate infection control provisions to support these.

The practice provided a safe service for all population groups with regard to medicine management and dealing with emergencies. However, the practice did not always ensure that people were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment because the chairs in the waiting room and consulting rooms were made of cloth and could not be cleaned properly.

There were effective systems in place to ensure that staff followed appropriate guidance. Joint working with other healthcare professionals was facilitated by regular integrated acre meetings. There was a training and appraisal schedule for both clinical and non clinical staff.

The practice was caring. Patients were treated with dignity and respect. The practice made provisions for end of life care and bereavement support where needed. Staff were described by patients as caring and we observed reception staff and clinical staff speaking to patients in a pleasant manner. Doors were closed during consultation and reception staff spoke in soft voice tone to prevent other patients from overhearing. There was also a separate room that could be used to talk to patients.

The practice was responsive to the needs of the population it served. There was provision for speakers of languages other than English where required and extra time was allocated to appointments where translation was required, in order to provide comprehensive treatment.

The practice was well led. There were clear governance structures. Staff were supported to develop and progress within their roles. Both clinical and non clinical staff felt that the managers were approachable and that there was an open and transparent culture.