The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Strouts Place Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

3 Strouts Place, Pelter Street, London, E2 7QU (020) 7739 8859

Provided and run by:
Strouts Place Medical Centre

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Strouts Place Medical Centre 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 Strouts Place Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

11 September 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Strouts Place Medical Centre on 11 September 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.

28 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Strouts Place Medical Centre on 28 June 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 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 by GPs 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 improvement are:

  • Should continue to keep under review the decision not to have a defibrillator on site as part of the practice’s arrangements for dealing with medical emergencies.
  • Consider further ways of meeting the needs of patients with some long term conditions given the comparatively high exception reporting rates in some clinical domains.
  • Consider further ways of improving uptake of cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening tests.
  • Continue to monitor and improve patients’ satisfaction scores on consultations with nurses.
  • Strengthen arrangements for the identification and support of carers amongst the patient list.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

17 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected the practice after a person contacted us anonymously with concerns about staffing and quality assurance at the practice. We did not find any evidence to support these allegations. We spoke with a GP partner, the practice manager, a receptionist and the health care assistant. We also spoke with five people using the service. The practice provided a range of primary services and clinics including support for people with longer term conditions and access to community and specialist service.

The patients we spoke with said they were happy with the service and could access the service when they needed to. Patients told us the staff were friendly and respected their privacy. One patient said, "I've been a long time at this practice. I am absolutely happy. Everyone is gentle."

We found there were enough staff to meet the needs of patients. Staff received support for professional development and told us they were well supported by their managers and the practice partners. We were told that the practice manager and doctors were approachable and always happy to discuss any issues.

The practice had a range of quality monitoring systems in place. The practice asked patients for their views about the service and had established a patient participation group and this had resulted in improvements. The practice team conducted audits and used performance data, incidents, comments and complaints to improve the quality and safety of care.