Sydenham House Medical Centre

Updated 25 January 2023

The registered provider is Sydenham House Medical Group which is a primary care at scale organisation that delivers general practice services at four registered locations in England.

Sydenham House Medical Centre is located at Mill Court, Ashford, Kent, TN24 8DN. The practice is situated within the NHS Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board (ICB) and has a general medical services contract with NHS England for delivering primary care services to the local community.

As part of our inspection we visited Hollington branch surgery, Hollington Surgery, Blue Line Lane, Ashford, Kent, TN24 8UN only, where the provider delivers regulated activities. The provider also delivers regulated activities at Sydenham House Medical Centre, Mill Court, Ashford, Kent, YN24 8DN and Musgrove Park branch surgery, Musgrove Park Medical Centre, Beaver Road, Ashford, Kent, TN23 7SP.

Sydenham House Medical Centre has a registered patient population of approximately 21,418 patients. The practice is located in an area with an average deprivation score.

There are arrangements with other providers to deliver services to patients outside of the practice’s working hours.

The practice staff consists of two of the provider’s GP Partners, four salaried GPs, three practice managers, one management trainee, one finance / personnel assistant, one practice supervisor, one advanced nurse practitioner, one advanced nurse practitioner trainee, one advanced clinical practitioner, one clinical pharmacist, two pharmacy technicians, four practice nurses, one assistant practitioner, four healthcare assistants, as well as reception staff and other administration staff. The practice also employs locum GPs directly and via an agency when required. Practice staff are also supported by the Sydenham House Medical Group management team.

Sydenham House Medical Centre is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to deliver the following regulated activities: diagnostic and screening procedures; family planning; maternity and midwifery services; surgical procedures; treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Updated 25 January 2023

This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions at this inspection are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

The full comprehensive report can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Sydenham House Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we carried out this inspection:

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sydenham House Medical Centre on 10 January 2023 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

How we carried out the inspection:

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

• Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
• Requesting evidence from the provider
• A short site visit

Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based 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.

Our findings:

We have rated this practice as Good overall.

• The practice’s systems, practices and processes helped keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
• There were systems and processes to help maintain appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene.
• Risks to patients, staff and visitors were assessed, monitored or managed effectively.
• The provider had systems for appropriate and safe use of medicines, including medicines optimisation, and was responsive to our findings relating to the prescribing of some high-risk medicines.
• The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong.
• The provider was responsive to our findings of improvements being required to some types of patient reviews.
• The provider was taking action to improve performance in relation to child immunisations.
• Improvements to performance in relation to cervical screening and breast cancer screening was ongoing.
• Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.
• Staff worked together and with other organisations to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Staff were consistent and proactive in helping patients to live healthier lives.
• Staff treated patients with kindness, respect and compassion.
• The provider was aware of the practice’s results from the national GP patient survey and was taking action to improve patient satisfaction scores.
• People were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.
• Complaints were listened to and used to improve the quality of care.
• There was compassionate and inclusive leadership at all levels.
• There were processes and systems to support good governance.
• The practice involved the public, staff and external partners to help ensure they delivered high-quality and sustainable care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Consider revising practice systems to ensure that all prescribing of high-risk medicines continues to follow relevant best practice guidance.
• Consider revising practice systems to ensure that all reviews of patients with long-term conditions continue to follow relevant best practice guidance.
• Continue with plans to improve uptake of childhood immunisations and the cervical screening programme / breast cancer screening programme by relevant patients.
• Continue to implement action plans and monitor improvements to patient satisfaction scores.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

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