The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Sturry Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

53 Island Road, Sturry, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 0EF (01227) 710372

Provided and run by:
Sturry 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 Sturry 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 Sturry Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

2 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Sturry Surgery on 2 November 2019. 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.

8 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sturry Surgery on 8 November. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system for reporting and recording significant events. Though some events had not been formally reported.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the experience and had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment 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. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and 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.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should improvement are:

  • The practice should formally record near misses (dispensing errors that do not reach a patient) as reviewing these assists in reducing the risk of errors in the future.
  • The practice should review the reporting of significant events to try and ensure that a greater number of the significant events are formally reported.
  • The practice should review the systems used to identify patients who are caring for others so as to develop a carers’ register which is more reflective of the patient population.


Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice