You are here

Greenwich Peninsula Practice Good


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Greenwich Peninsula Practice on 8 July 2021. 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 Greenwich Peninsula Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

Review carried out on 17 January 2020

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Greenwich Peninsula Practice on 17 January 2020. 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.

Inspection carried out on 3 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Greenwich Peninsula Practice on 3 February 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was a transparent and proactive approach to safety and a system was in place for reporting and recording significant events. However not all incidents and complaints were recorded and learning shared.

  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care delivered in line with current best practice guidance.

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.

  • Staff received ongoing training and development to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The practice had a clear vision to deliver a high quality service which was responsive to patients needs and promoted the best possible outcomes for patients.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.

  • Patient surveys indicated that some patients did not find it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and were dissatisfied with the level of continuity of care provided. Patients also said they did not feel involved in their care or decisions about their treatment. However, the practice was aware of these issues and had as a result recently recruited several new permanent members of clinical staff.

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

There were also areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • The provider should continue to review the impact on care to patients resulting from the lack of consistency of GP staff and make efforts to stabilise the turnover of clinical staff within the practice.

  • The provider should ensure that the practice website is updated on a regular basis to keep patients informed of the frequent changes in clinical staff within the practice.

  • The provider should formally record, investigate and share learning on all incidents and complaints for quality assurance purposes.

  • The provider should consider ways to proactively identify patients with carer responsibilities.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice