The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr H W Ng & Partner Also known as Scott Park Surgery

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Scott Park Surgery, 205 Western Approaches, Southend On Sea, Essex, SS2 6XY (01702) 420642

Provided and run by:
Dr H W Ng & Partner

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 18 June 2026. Dr H W Ng Partner also known as Scott Park Surgery is a GP practice and delivers services to approximately 2670 people under a contract held with NHS England. According to the latest available data, the ethnic make-up of the service area is approximately 91.5% White, 3.9% Asian, 2.1% Mixed, 1.8% Black and 0.8% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows deprivation within the service population group is in the 9 decile (9 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the service population is relative to others.

This was a focused assessment. We undertook this assessment due to the length of time since our last assessment. We assessed 10 quality statements from across all 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. Further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

We found 2 breaches of regulation, 1 for Regulation 17 Good Governance, and 1 for Regulation 10 Dignity and Respect of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

08 Nov to 08 Nov

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall. (Previous rating March 2015 – Good)

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 8 November 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions.

Our findings were:

Are services safe? We found that this service was providing safe services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective? We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring? We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive? We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led? We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Our key findings were:

  • We found an open and transparent approach to safety at the service.
  • There was an effective system to record and report significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Information relating to patients was accurate and enabled staff to make appropriate treatment choices.
  • Patients’ care needs were assessed and delivered according to their need.
  • Treatment and care was delivered in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The service maintained appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene.
  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The clinic worked proactively with those services that referred patients into the service, to improve their experience.
  • The service was well equipped to treat patients and the facilities met their needs.
  • Patient feedback was consistently positive.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were fully involved in the decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The service was aware and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Implement regular fire drills
  • Review the storage of emergency medicines and equipment

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

Please refer to the detailed report and the evidence tables for further information.

27 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr H W Ng & Partner on 27 November 2014. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be safe, effective, well-led, caring and responsive to patients’ needs. It was also good for providing services for the following population groups; older people, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable, people with long term conditions and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

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.
  • The practice was clean and hygienic.
  • 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.
  • The practice worked effectively with other providers.
  • 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.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The practice excelled in its proactive approach to the ongoing health surveillance of people with long term conditions, particularly those with diabetes.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should

  • Ensure that flooring in clinical areas meets the specifications as recommended by the Department of Health guidance on infection control in health care premises.
  • Ensure that an automated external defibrillator is available for use in accordance with recommendations set out in  the guidance issued by the Resuscitation Council.
  • Carry out an assessment of the practice water supply in relation to the risk of water-borne infections such as legionella.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice