The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Barton House Group Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

233 Albion Road, Stoke Newington, London, N16 9JT (020) 7249 5511

Provided and run by:
Barton House Group Practice

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

We carried out an assessment of Barton House Group Practice on the 9 June 2026; this is a GP practice that delivers services to approximately 12,244 people under a GP contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 63% White, 8% Asian, 7% Mixed, 14% Black and 8% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 5 decile (5 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.

We undertook this assessment due to the time elapsed since the previous inspection. This was a focused assessment. We assessed 10 specific quality statements, across 5 key questions. This assessment considered the demographics of the people using the service, the context the service was working within and how this impacted service delivery. The assessment did not contain a review of clinical practices. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

Staff kept facilities clean and maintained equipment appropriately to ensure people were kept safe. They assessed and managed the risk of infection and took steps to control the risk of it spreading. Staff supported people to live healthier lives, monitoring their care and treatment to ensure they received positive and consistent outcomes. People could mostly access care, treatment and support when they needed it. Staff understood their individual roles and responsibilities. Leaders accounted for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff through clear and effective governance processes. Although staff had completed mandatory training, we found the scheduling of updates and level of training required review.

 

 

 

20 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous comprehensive inspection 01 October 2015 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? - Good

As part of our inspection process, we also look at the quality of care for specific population groups. The population groups are rated as:

Older People – Good

People with long-term conditions – Good

Families, children and young people – Good

Working age people (including those recently retired and students – Good

People whose circumstances may make them vulnerable – Good

People experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) - Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Barton House Group Practice on 20 November 2017. The practice was previously inspected in October 2015. All key questions and population groups were rated as good and this inspection was to ensure that the practice were maintaining standards. At that inspection there were no areas identified that the provider needed to improve.

At this inspection we found:

  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.

  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect, although we did observe the potential for privacy to be compromised when patients discuss appointments or other issues at reception.

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen, although there were actions to follow up in respect of fire and health and safety risk assessments and the frequency of the electrical fixed installation should be verified. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. The level of child safeguarding training that staff had achieved was not clear.

  • We found the practice had not clearly displayed its previous inspection ratings but they confirmed they had experienced technical problems with doing this but would try and remedy without delay.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the risk assessments carried out for fire and health and safety and follow up any outstanding actions and the frequency of the electrical fixed installation testing should be verified.

  • Review the reception area privacy arrangements.

  • Review display of the CQC rating on the practice website.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

1 October 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Barton House Group Practice on 1 October 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

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

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • 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 practice took a proactive approach to targeting services to the needs of the local population.

We saw some areas of outstanding practice:

  • The practice had employed a Bengali speaking advocate to provide support and translation services to patients from the local Bengali community. As well as acting as interpreter and health advocate, liaising with the primary care team, the advocate offered advice and information regarding housing, benefits and immigration issues.
  • The practice worked closely with with Derman, the Turkish Health Advocacy and Counselling project. The CCG also funded a Turkish speaking advocate to provide translation and support services to Turkish speaking patients.
  • The practice had recognised the needs of the Polish speaking Roma community living in North London, and had identified potential barriers to these patients accessing services, such as difficulties with registration. One of the practice GPs spoke Polish fluently, and took a lead in supporting the Roma community.The practice had attracted members of this community living in the local area and over time, this demand extended to families who were living outside the practice boundaries, including in other boroughs. The practice consulted with the Primary Care Trust in place at the time, and registered such patients living outside the practice boundaries. The practice offered a flexible approach to registration and the booking of appointments, with GPs offering appointments on a walk-in basis.
  • The practice employed two counsellors to support patients with mental health needs, providing support for these patients in a familiar environment. The practice had identified that for 23 patients who completed a course of counselling in the previous year, 87% reported a significant improvement. Further, 83% of patients at the start of treatment reported moderate to severe symptoms, which reduced to 7% after completion of treatment.
  • The practice was offering ear, nose and throat clinics for practice patients, with plans to extend access to this service to other local patients. The practice demonstrated that it had lower referral rates in this area than neighbouring practices of a similar size (for example, in the previous six months, they had referred 0.18% of patients for secondary care in this area, compared to a CCG average across practices of 0.3%. The clinics offered therefore had reduced the burden on the local secondary care services, as well as enabled patients to access care closer to home.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice