You are here

Bromley Urgent Care Centre Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 28 December 2017

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bromley Urgent Care Centre on 16 February 2017. The overall rating for the practice was good. However, a breach of regulation 12(1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 was identified, and we rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services. The full comprehensive inspection report published June 2017 can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Bromley Urgent Care Centre on our website at

This inspection was a desk-based follow up inspection carried out on 13 December 2017 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 16 February 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements.

The practice is rated as good for providing safe services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The service had developed effective systems and processes to ensure safe care and treatment including medicines management in relation to vaccine storage.

  • The service had updated their policies and documents in relation to cold chain (a system of storing medicines/vaccines at recommended temperatures from the point of manufacture to the point of use) and medicine management.

  • The service conducted monthly clinical governance meetings where they discussed compliance in the management of the monitoring of the vaccine refrigerator.

  • The service recorded vaccine refrigerator temperatures daily.

  • The service conducted a monthly vaccine refrigerator audit.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection areas



Updated 28 December 2017



Updated 13 June 2017

The service is rated as good for providing effective services.

  • The service was meeting most urgent care targets which had been agreed with the local CCG.

  • Staff assessed needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.

  • Clinical audits demonstrated quality improvement.

  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • There was evidence of appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.

  • Staff worked with other health care professionals to understand and meet the range and complexity of patients’ needs.



Updated 13 June 2017

The service is rated as good for providing caring services.

  • Feedback from the large majority of patients through our comment cards and collected by the provider was very positive.

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

  • Information for patients about the services available was easy to understand and accessible.

  • We saw staff treated patients with kindness and respect, and maintained patient and information confidentiality.



Updated 13 June 2017

The service is rated as good for providing responsive services.

  • Service staff reviewed the needs of its local population and engaged with its commissioners to secure improvements to services where these were identified.

  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • The service had systems in place to ensure patients received care and treatment in a timely way and according to the urgency of need.

  • Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand and evidence showed the service responded quickly to issues raised. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and other stakeholders.



Updated 13 June 2017

The service is rated as good for being well-led.

  • The service had a clear vision and strategy to deliver high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients. Staff were clear about the vision and their responsibilities in relation to it.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service had a number of policies and procedures to govern activity and held regular governance meetings.

  • There was an overarching governance framework which supported the delivery of the strategy and good quality care. This included arrangements to monitor and improve quality and identify risk.

  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour. The provider encouraged a culture of openness and honesty. The service had systems in place for notifiable safety incidents and ensured this information was shared with staff to ensure appropriate action was taken.

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

  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels