The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dapdune House Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Dapdune House, Wharf Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 4RP (01483) 400200

Provided and run by:
Dapdune House Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dapdune House Surgery 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 Dapdune House Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

23 Oct 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dapdune House Surgery on 23 October 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

We had previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dapdune House Surgery in October 2014. The practice was last rated as Good overall and Good in all domains. All of the practices’ previous reports can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dapdune House Surgery on our website www.cqc.org.uk

We carried out an inspection of this service due to the length of time since the last inspection. Following our review of the information available to us, including information provided by the practice, we focused our inspection on the following key questions:

  • Is it Safe
  • Is it Effective
  • Is it Caring
  • Is it Responsive
  • Is it Well led

We have rated this practice as good overall and in all of the key questions. They have been rated as good overall for all population groups.

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service 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 rated the practice good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led care 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 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 way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • Staff worked well together as a team and all felt supported to carry out their roles. There was a strong team ethos and culture of working together for a common aim.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Review and continue to monitor cervical smear screening to meet the Public Health England screening rate target.
  • Review and continue to monitor child immunisation rates to meet World Health Organisation (WHO) targets.
  • Review if minutes of the Business Area meetings would be beneficial to record and send to all staff
  • Review the contract for the external cleaning company in the storage of cleaning equipment

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

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

7 October 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dapdune House Surgery on 7 October 2014. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Specifically, we found the practice to be good for providing safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led services. It was also good for providing services for the older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working-age people (including those recently retired and students), people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable 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.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • 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.
  • There were active patient participation and patient representation groups.
  • The practice proactively sought feedback from patients, which it acted on.

However there was also one area of practice where the provider should make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Ensure that the complaints procedure for patients is more prominent on the practice website.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice