• Doctor
  • GP practice

The Redcliffe Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

10 Redcliffe Street, London, SW10 9DT (020) 7460 2222

Provided and run by:
Health Partners at Violet Melchett

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 7 March 2019

The Redcliffe Surgery is a single location surgery which provides a primary medical service through a Personal Medical Services (PMS) contract to patients in the Kensington and Chelsea areas of West London. It has extended hours access, remote care monitoring, learning disability, mental health and people living with dementia health check schemes.

The practice is registered with the CQC to carry out the following regulated activities of diagnostic and screening procedures, surgical procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery services and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

When the practice is closed, out of hours cover for emergencies is provided by 111 service. The practice is currently part of the South Primary Network of GP practices. At the time of our inspection there were approximately 10,600 patients on the practice list.

The practice has four male GPs, four female GPs, one female practice nurses, a pharmacist, a healthcare assistant, a practice manager, a case manager and an extensive administrative team.

The population groups served by the practice included a cross-section of socio-economic and ethnic groups. A relatively low proportion of patients (6% of the practice population) were aged over 75. There were also below average numbers of children cared for at the practice (7% of under 5s and 16% of under 18s). The practice had a higher than average population of working age adults (69%). There are rates of deprivation similar to practice averages across England but the catchment area included areas of both high affluence and high deprivation.

Overall inspection


Updated 7 March 2019

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Redcliffe Surgery on 8 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service is 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 have rated this practice as good overall.

We rated the practice as outstanding for providing well-led services because:

  • The culture of the practice and the way it was led and managed drove the delivery and improvement of high-quality, person-centred care.

We rated the practice as outstanding for the mental health population group because:

  • Services were tailored to meet the needs of mental health patients. They were delivered in a flexible way that ensured choice and continuity of care.
  • There were innovative approaches to providing integrated person-centred care

We also rated the practice as good for providing safe, effective, caring and responsive services and for all other population groups because:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff we spoke with were positive about working at the practice and the leadership and management team.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The practice promoted good health and prevention and provided patients with suitable advice and guidance.
  • The Patient Participation Group (PPG) was very involved in the practice. They met six times a year to ensure they maintained regular communication. For example, sharing information on changes and improvements and gathering regular patient feedback which contributed to shaping ongoing future developments and business planning.

We saw several areas of outstanding practice including:

  • They offered a personalised holistic approach to care for patients with serious and longer term, common mental health needs, and dementia. This was done in partnership with the Community Living Well Service (CLW), offering a pro-active and preventative approach. They also made regular use of The Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMHWB) to measure impact of care plans encouraging GPs to have wider conversations about wellbeing. The practice (Ipsos Mori GP Patient Survey 2018) showed high satisfaction ratings for treatment of those with mental health needs 95% (CCG average 86% and National Average 87%);

  • The leadership drove continuous improvement and staff were accountable for delivering change. They held annual away days for all staff where they updated the business plan and strategy, including key priorities for the year. All staff would then be part of working groups to implement changes. They had protected time for learning sessions on a monthly basis to bring together the practice staff and to feedback proposals from each working group to reach agreements.

  • There was a clear proactive approach to seeking out new ways of providing care and treatment. The practice recently introduced two new roles into the practice, case managers and the practice pharmacist which has freed up two hours a day of doctor time to enable them to do other medical tasks.

  • The practice had developed a patient partnership charter in conjunction with the PPG that stated the practice vision and what the patients could expect from the practice and in turn what the practice expected from patients.

  • Safe innovation was encouraged, for example we saw the Health and Social care assistant had arranged a coffee morning for older adults to reduce social isolation, and to introduce locally available events such as yoga which was attended by 13 patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to implement processes to improve the take up of childhood immunisations


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

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice