The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Brockwell Park Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

117 Norwood Road, Norwood, London, SE24 9AE (020) 8678 5400

Provided and run by:
Brockwell Park Surgery

All Inspections

20 October 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Brockwell Park Surgery on 20 October 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - good

Effective - good

Caring – rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Responsive - good

Well-led - good

Following our previous inspection on 3 December 2016 the practice was rated good overall and for providing safe, effective, caring, and well-led services. The practice was rated outstanding for responsive services.

At the last inspection we rated the practice as outstanding for providing responsive services because:

  • There was a garden project on the premises.
  • The practice offered a safe space for victims of domestic violence
  • The practice had put several quality improvements in place to better care for patients

At this inspection, we found that those areas previously regarded as outstanding practice were now embedded throughout the majority of GP practices. While the provider had maintained this good practice, the threshold to achieve an outstanding rating had not been reached. The practice is therefore now rated good for providing responsive services.

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

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a comprehensive inspection to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

Our findings

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 found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong. Themes were identified from significant events and outcomes shared with local practices.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff were trained for the roles and received detailed appraisals to encourage development.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way. The practice offered 15 minute appointments as standard and patients found it easy to contact the practice via telephone.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Ensure medicine reviews contain sufficient information and are accurately stored in patients’ records.
  • Implement and embed the action plan for monitoring of patients with long-term conditions.
  • Continue to review and take steps to improve uptake of cervical cancer screening and childhood immunisations.
  • Work towards the reintroduction of a patient participation group.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

3 December 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Brockwell Park Surgery on 3 December 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

We saw four areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had started a garden project on the premises. Patients with poor mental health and those with learning difficulties were encouraged to become involved in gardening in the practice’s garden to assist in the management of their mental health. The gardening project was run as a charitable enterprise, and any vegetables grown in the garden were sold to support the project. Patients that we spoke to who had been involved in the gardening project said that they had found it very helpful in building motivation and managing their mental health. Other patients told us that it was a pleasant area to sit in while they waited for their appointment, and that GPs were happy to pick them up from the garden when it was time for their appointment.

  • The practice offered a safe space at the practice which was used by a service supporting victims of domestic violence. When patients were rehoused they were offered the opportunity of staying with the practice even if they lived outside of the practice boundaries.

  • In order for staff to better understand the provisions of care to patients with dementia and the impact on their families, the practice had arranged for all staff at the surgery to attend an event where a family member of someone with dementia talked about their experience.

  • The practice had put a number of quality improvements in place to better care for patients. This included the introduction of 15 minute consultation slots (which had been audited for efficacy). The practice had also completed a large number of audits (11) in the last two years. Learning points were clear and there were clear mechanisms in place to improve care.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice