The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Links Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Links Medical Practice, 27 Brook Lane, Bromley, Kent, BR1 4PX (020) 8461 3333

Provided and run by:
Links Medical 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 Links Medical 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 Links Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

15 October 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Links Medical Practice on 15 October 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.

24 March 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Links Medical Practice on 24 March 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 a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and 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.
  • 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.

There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Ensure that the chaperone processes are in line with guidelines and that staff have been trained and undertake a risk assessment to ascertain if DBS checks are required for all staff who undertake this role.
  • Ensure that proof of good character are taken prior to employing new staff.
  • Ensure yearly appraisals are performed for all practice staff.
  • Ensure that the practice reviews the feedback from national GP patient survey to identify and act on further areas that can be improved.
  • Review the complaints procedure to ensure it contains all the relevant information for patients and that complaints are responded in a timely manner.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

31 July 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we spent time at both GP surgeries in Brook Lane and Mottingham. People we spoke with were generally happy with the treatment they received from the surgery. One person told us "I cannot talk highly enough about this practice" and another described the care they received as "fantastic". We found that most people felt listened to by the GPs and other staff at the practice. A few people said they had difficulty getting through on the telephone or getting an appointment and they were not kept informed if the GP was running late with appointments.

Most people felt their personal information was kept private and they were treated with respect by all staff. A person said "the GP always listens to me". However other people told us they were concerned about confidentiality as the reception area at Brook Lane was very open and they sometimes overheard reception staff talking about people using the service.

We found that people were consulted with and involved in their care in most cases and that people's needs were assessed and care was planned in a way that met these needs. The practice had taken steps to ensure only suitable people were employed at the service. There were robust child protection procedures in place and staff had been trained in both child and adult safeguarding procedures, although there was no policy for safeguarding vulnerable adults available. The practice had systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was monitored.