The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr MOG Sarder's Practice Also known as Deptford Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Deptford Medical Centre, 2 Pearson's Avenue, New Cross, London, SE14 6TG (020) 8692 0033

Provided and run by:
Dr MOG Sarder's Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr MOG Sarder's Practice 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 Dr MOG Sarder's Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

4 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr MOG Sarder's Practice on 4 December 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.

14 April 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Deptford Medical Centre on 14 April 2016. 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 in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current, evidence-based guidance. Staff had been trained with the skills, knowledge and experience required 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 make improvements are:

  • Carry out clinical audits in accordance with national guidance.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

5 February 2014

During a routine inspection

People who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them. One patient told us, "we are looked after well". Another said, "we get referred [to a specialist] if needed. Test results come back quickly. I have moved all my family here". We spoke with four patients and two relatives whose elderly family members had appointments with the GPs. All of those we spoke with were complimentary about the practice. One patient told us, "there is no them and us. They are easy to talk to. I have had more care here in the three months I have been registered than I have had in the past 20 years".

Patients told us they had continuity of care as they could book to see the GP they preferred. All of the patients we spoke with told us the appointment system was satisfactory. They also told us they were kept informed and were referred on if necessary. One patient told us, "I am given time to see the GP and don't feel rushed". Patients also told us they were aware of the treatment they required and why it was necessary.

Staff were able to demonstrate they had a knowledge of safeguarding policies and procedures and they knew what to do if they had any concerns.

The practice had recruitment procedures in place, and we found that staff had been appropriately vetted before starting work.

The practice had a number of systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, including facilitating a patient participation group.