The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Earlsfield Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2-4 Steerforth Street, London, SW18 4HH (020) 8946 5681

Provided and run by:
Earlsfield 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 Earlsfield 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 Earlsfield Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

18 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Earlsfield Practice on 18 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.

27 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Earlsfield Practice on 4 July 2016. The overall rating for the practice was good, with the rating for providing safe services requires improvement. The full comprehensive report on the 4 July 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Earlsfield Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 27 March 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 4 July 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

The practice is now rated as good for providing safe services. The overall rating remains unchanged from our previous inspection.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had reviewed and improved the arrangements for assessing the risk of, and preventing detecting and controlling the spread of infections, including those that are healthcare associated.
  • The practice had conducted infection prevention and control training sessions for clinical and non-clinical staff, conducted and carried out actions identified through infection prevention and control audits and stopped providing services from their branch surgery.

We also reviewed the areas we identified where the provider should make improvement:

  • The practice had reviewed and updated their induction programme to include training for temporary staff which included practice introduction, mandatory training such as infection prevention and control and role specific training and induction requirements. 

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

4 July 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Earlsfield Practice on 4 July 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those related to infection prevention and control. Not all staff had received up to date infection prevention and control training and the condition of the branch practice did not meet infection prevention and control guidelines.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience 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 must make improvement are:

  • Assessing the risk of, and preventing, detecting and controlling the spread of, infections, including those that are health care associated.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review the practice induction policy to include temporary staff training.  

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

31 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our inspection of 22 August 2013 found concerns that people who used the service were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. The provider wrote to us and told us they would review their medication management procedures and put in place improved systems to address the issues identified by 28 October 2013.

During this inspection we found that the provider had systems in place to assure cold chain store validity of vaccinations and other injections stored in fridges used in the practice. We observed that the content of fridges in consultation rooms had been protected from unauthorised access.

22 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We observed that despite being busy on the day of our inspection, reception staff were available to assist people in a timely manner, and were professional and polite. The reception area was separate from the waiting area, which meant that others could not hear what was said as people checked in for their appointments. Additionally, reception staff who spoke with people on the phone were in a separate area behind the main reception desk, which meant that others could not hear what was said when staff were on the phone even when they were at the main reception desk.

We found that there were appropriate infection control measures in use at the practice and that medicines were adequately managed. We also found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because procedures were in place at the practice for safeguarding children and vulnerable adults, and staff demonstrated that they were aware of these procedures.