The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Station Road Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

69 Station Road, Sidcup, Kent, DA15 7DS (020) 8308 4444

Provided and run by:
Station Road Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

25 June 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced review of Station Road Surgery on 25 June 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Responsive – good

Following our previous inspection on 5 February 2020, the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions but requires improvement for providing responsive care.

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

Why we carried out this review

This review was a focused review of information without undertaking a site visit to follow up on breaches of Regulation 9 Person-centred care.

At the last inspection we found:

  • Wheelchair and pushchair users could not access the practice through the main entrance. Patients and other visitors who needed step-free access entered the building through the staff car park. However, there was no designated pedestrian route through the car park, to support safe access for these patients.
  • There were difficulties getting through to the practice by telephone, which was reflected in the GP patient survey feedback and CQC comments cards received.

We also followed up on ‘should’ actions identified at the last inspection. Specifically:

  • Review their website to ensure the information about clinics and services available in the practice is up to date.

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 without visiting the location, by requesting and reviewing documentary evidence from the provider.

Our findings

We found that:

  • The practice had commissioned plans for an access ramp. Staff told us that they were unsure that the ramp (as designed) would meet people’s access needs and wanted to consider this further (with the contractor) before proceeding. The practice also consulted the Patient Participation Group for their views to ensure that any changes made would meet the needs of their patients.
  • Reception staff had completed additional training on efficient call handling and staffing patterns had been adjusted to provide more staff to answer calls at peak times. The most recent GP patient survey results released in July 2021 showed these measures had led to improvements since the previous inspection.
  • Although the practice website does not indicate that it is a Tier 2 diabetes service provider, it does state the ‘diabetes team will provide you with support, regular reviews and the day-to-day care of your needs.’

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to assess patient access to the premises and take action to address any areas of concern.

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

5 February 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focussed inspection of Station Road Surgery on 5 February 2020 following our annual review of the information available to us including information provided by the practice. Our review indicated that there may have been a significant change to the quality of care provided since the last inspection.

This inspection focused on the key questions effective, responsive and well-led.

Because of the assurance received from our review of information we carried forward the ratings for the key questions safe and caring.

We rated the practice as good overall with the following key question ratings:

Effective – good

Responsive– requires improvement

Well-led – good

The practice had previously been inspected 1 July 2015 and had been rated as good overall and in four of the five key questions, with well led being rated as requires improvement.

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, good for providing effective services, requires improvement for providing responsive services, and good for being well led. The practice was rated as requires improvement for all the population groups because of their rating for providing responsive services.

We rated the practice as good for providing effective services because:

  • The practice scored higher than the local and national averages for key clinical performance indicators. Clinical performance indicators – QOF, childhood immunisations, cancer screening, low exception reporting rates– provided evidence of consistent high performance in the care and treatment of patients.
  • All staff were engaged in activities to monitor and improve quality and outcomes.
  • There was evidence of quality improvement activity.
  • Staff were receiving regular appraisals and had training and development opportunities for and beyond their roles.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing responsive services because:

  • Complaints were appropriately managed and there was evidence of actions taken in response to complaints.
  • eConsult (an online medical consultation platform) was promoted in the practice to tackle access challenges.
  • The internal facilities and premises were appropriate for the services delivered. However, there was an external physical access challenge for wheelchair and pushchair users, as they had to access the practice via the staff car park, which did not have a designated pedestrian access area.
  • Difficulties getting through to the practice by telephone were reflected in the GP patient survey feedback and CQC comments cards received.

We rated the practice as good for providing well led services because:

  • The practice had a clear vision and credible strategy to provide high quality sustainable care.
  • The practice had a culture which drove high quality sustainable care.
  • The practice had an active patient participation group.
  • There were systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation.

We noted the following outstanding feature in the practice:

  • The practice had consistently low rates of exception reporting in relation to the care of their patients, including for hard to reach groups of patients.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure the care and treatment of patients is appropriate, meets their needs and reflects their preferences.

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

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review their website to ensure the information about clinics and services available in the practice is up to date.

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 July 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Station Road Surgery on 1 July 2015.

We found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring and services. It was also good for providing services for older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people including those recently retired and students, people whose circumstances make them vulnerable and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

We found the practice to require improvement for providing well led services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • There were systems in place to ensure safe care. Policies were reviewed regularly and all staff were aware of their responsibilities in terms of the provision of care.
  • The practice also had an appropriate system in place to review untoward incidents which were used to inform how services might be developed to improve patient care.
  • The practice building was clean and had been redesigned to ensure that it was fit for purpose.
  • Outcomes for patients at the practice were in line with or better than national averages, and a developed system of audit was in place at the practice.
  • Multidisciplinary meetings were held and care was planned and shared with healthcare providers in the community.
  • Patients reported that staff in the practice were caring and told us they were treated with dignity and respect.
  • The practice had made efforts to ensure that care was responsive and targeted to its practice population in conjunction with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. This included the practice’s website which was thorough, clear and informative. Appointments could be made and prescriptions requested online.
  • Staff at the practice understood their roles and responsibilities and line management arrangements were clear.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Ensure that all staff who are acting as chaperones are appropriately trained and risk assess as to whether or not clearance by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is required.
  • The practice should ensure that there are appropriate means of sharing information with administrative staff.
  • The practice should assure itself that all staff feel confident about raising concerns as several staff that we spoke to said that they were not. This should include formal team meetings in which administrative staff are included.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice