The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Parkside Group Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

27 Wyche Grove, South Croydon, Surrey, CR2 6EX (020) 8680 2588

Provided and run by:
Parkside Group 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 Parkside Group 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 Parkside Group Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

2 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Parkside Group Practice on 2 August 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.

16 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Parkside Group Practice on 16 November 2016. 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 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 said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP 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.


Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

25 February 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with the practice manager, the deputy manager, a senior partner and General Practitioner (GP), a practice nurse, and two receptionists.

We also spoke with ten patients who regularly used the service, including which included two members of the Patient Participation Group (PPG). They told us that overall they were happy with the standard of the service provided by the Practice and that they felt all the doctors, nurses and receptionists that worked there were 'very good'. All the patients we met said they would not hesitate to recommend Parkside Practice to anyone who lived locally. One patient told us 'all the staff here are wonderful. I have already recommended the surgery to my friends'. Another patient said 'this is the first surgery I've been too where the doctors have never rushed me. All the GP's are marvellous here. I would highly recommend the surgery to anyone'.

It was evident from records we examined, feedback we received from patients and staff, and practices we observed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure patient safety and welfare. We found patient's privacy and dignity was respected by staff and that patients views were always taken into account. We found consultations and treatment was provided in a hygienically clean and safe environment. The provider also had effective systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received.