The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Minet Green Health Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Akerman Health Centre, 60 Patmos Road, London, SW9 6AF (020) 3049 6690

Provided and run by:
Minet Green Health Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Minet Green Health Practice 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 Minet Green Health Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

29 June 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Minet Green Health Practice on 29 June 2019. 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.

05 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at the Minet Green Health Practice on 5 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • 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.
  • 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 had good access to named GPs 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.
  • The practice worked closely with other organisations and with the local community in planning how services were provided to ensure that they meet patients’ needs. For example two of the GP partners held academic research posts with local universities which supported the development of innovative practice in primary care.
  • The practice had strong and visible clinical and managerial leadership and governance arrangements.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had made a strong commitment to treating people with dignity and respect. This included ensuring that people using the service were not discriminated against in any way. For example, the practice had been awarded a Gold ‘Pride in Practice’ award by the LGBT Foundation for providing inclusive services for patients regardless of their sexual orientation. Staff had received additional training in this area. This was in recognition of the needs of the local population.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice