• Doctor
  • GP practice

St Marks PMS

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

St Marks Medical Centre, 24 Wrottesley Road, Plumstead, London, SE18 3EP (020) 8854 6262

Provided and run by:
St Marks PMS

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about St Marks PMS 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 St Marks PMS, you can give feedback on this service.

16 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about St Marks PMS on 16 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.

4 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Marks PMS at its main site St Marks Medical Centre on 24 Wrottesley Road Plumstead, and its branch site Nightingale Surgery on 19 Milward Walk Woolwich Common on 4 August 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.
  • Data showed that some outcomes for patients with and diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were below national averages, in relation to the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The practice’s analysis of their performance showed that there had been an improvement in the management of patients with COPD; this data had not been published or independently verified at the time of our inspection.
  • 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, but the practice did not always inform patients that had complained of how to escalate their concerns if they were dissatisfied by the practice’s response. 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Improve outcomes for patients with diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, in relation to the Quality and Outcomes Framework.

  • Review how patients with caring responsibilities are identified to ensure information, advice and support is made available to them.

  • Ensure the complaints procedure includes information about how patients can escalate their complaint.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice