- GP practice
Dr Jefferies and Partners
Assessment report published 21 April 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: We conducted an assessment between 7 July to 9 July 2025. We carried out the remote clinical searches and remote interviews on 7 8 July and a site visit on 9 July. We carried out further remote clinical searches on 20 August 2025. The inspection team included a lead inspector, supported by two inspectors, a GP Specialist Advisor (SPA), and a nurse SPA. Dr Jefferies and Partners is a GP practice and delivers service to 13,794 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The practice has a main site at 292 Munster Road, Fulham London, SW6 6BQ and at a nearby branch surgery at 286 Munster Road, Fulham. London, SW6 6BQ. The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide the following regulated activities: diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery services, surgical procedures, and treatment of disease, disorder, or injury.
The National General Practice Profiles shows that that 68.85% of registered patients are white, 9.99% are Asian, 9.19% are black, 6.10% are mixed, and 5.87% are other. Information published by Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 6 decile (6 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 practice had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe, however we did identify some safety concerns relating to fire safety, health and safety, emergency medicines, infection prevention and control. The equipment was appropriate, they were clean and well-maintained, although some risks were not always mitigated, for example clinical waste was seen in non-clinical waste bins. Leaders demonstrated openness to learning and improvement, and the took prompt action during the inspection to address concerns we had identified during our site visit. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff appropriately managed medicines and involved people in planning any changes.
Effective: Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. 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. Staff involved those important to people to make decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.
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. 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: Staff mostly understood their roles and responsibilities. The practice had an overarching governance framework, and systems and processes in place, however, we found that these were not always being followed. We found that there were gaps and areas for improvement required in relation to governance and oversight. 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.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. Results from the 2025 National GP Patient Survey and the NHS Friends and Family Test, showed people were satisfied with the services provided. There was an active patient participation group (PPG) who represented the views of people using the service. Representatives from the PPG described how managers made positive changes because of feedback, such as the practice capturing and differentiating their digital and non-digitally advanced patients and considering both when sending out surveys. We asked the service to distribute a link allowing people to provide feedback directly to the CQC, which we saw was displayed in the waiting area, but we did not receive any further feedback.