• Doctor
  • GP practice

Francis Grove Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

8 Francis Grove, Wimbledon, London, SW19 4DL (020) 8971 5640

Provided and run by:
Francis Grove Surgery

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 5 August 2025 to 6 August 2025. Francis Grove Surgery is a GP practice and delivers service to 14794 under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profiles states that the ethnic makeup of the practice was 72.29% White, 14.49% Asian, 5.99% Mixed ,3.62% Black, and 3.61% Other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 10th decile 10 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.Where patients didn’t have capacity, and staff took decisions about the patient’s care in their best interest, they involved those people who were important to the patient in the decision.

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 and knowledgeable. Staff generally felt leaders were supportive. Staff generally 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.

19 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Francis Grove Surgery on 19 November 2015. 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 the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The practice worked to improve patient outcomes, including with other local providers to share best practice. For example, the practice nurses recruited patients for research studies and actively took part in carrying out research.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that 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. Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet people’s needs. For example, with local dementia services.
  • 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 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.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • As well as providing the anticoagulation clinic in-house, the practice nurses undertook home visits to provide this service to their known housebound patients, allowing for continuity of care. The practice had gathered patient satisfaction information for the anticoagulation service annually to ensure it was continuing to meet patients’ needs. We were shown evidence of surveys for the last two years.
  • The majority of the practice population were of working-age. The practice had implemented a well-women’s drop in service once weekly for cervical screening, chlamydia screening, family planning advice and immunisations for pregnant women. This had been running for four years. Following feedback gathered from patients using the drop in service, the practice offered more extended hours sessions for those of working-age with the practice nursing team, to improve access to these services. Patients were very positive about this service that was offered by the practice.
  • The practice promoted a local dementia hub and had close links with this service. The practice nursing team organised a dementia open day in May 2015 during Alzheimer’s awareness week, specifically for dementia sufferers and carers. The Patient Participation Group (PPG) also assisted with arrangements for a Saturday flu drop in clinic in September 2015, where representatives from the dementia hub and older people’s services were invited to provide information and support to patients and carers.

However there were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Ensure that all clinical staff are trained to the required level for safeguarding children.

  • Ensure that the reasons for changes made to practice systems are clearly communicated to all staff and ensure that non-clinical staff are given enough time in staff meetings to provide suggestions and feedback.

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