The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Stamford Hill Group Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Egerton Road, Stamford Hill, London, N16 6UA (020) 8800 1000

Provided and run by:
Stamford Hill Group 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 Stamford Hill Group 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 Stamford Hill Group Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

20 May 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Stamford Hill Group Practice on 20 May 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led - Good

The 'Good' rating for the 'Caring' question is in respect of our previous inspection which took place on 4 July 2019.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Stamford Hill Group Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We had previously inspected the practice on 4 July 2019, when we rated it good in respect of the safe, caring and well led questions but rated it as requires improvement in respect of the effective and responsive questions. We served a Requirement Notice for breach of Regulations 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This inspection took place to confirm that the necessary actions had been taken to address the breach of regulation.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good overall and for all population groups.

We found that:

  • When something went wrong, there was an appropriate, thorough review that involved all relevant staff. Lessons were learned and communicated to support improvement.

  • Action had been taken since our July 2019 inspection such that a cytology failsafe procedure was now in place. Performance for cancer screening and reviews were also now comparable to local and national averages.

  • Although the practice’s performance for childhood immunisations continued to be significantly below the national target of 95% uptake, a range of improvement activity had taken place between our July 2019 inspection and the March 2020 emergence of the Covid 19 pandemic, such that the variance for two indicators had narrowed. We saw evidence of how the involvement of other organisations and the local community was integral to how services were planned and to ensuring that services met people’s needs.

  • Services were planned and delivered in a way that met the needs of the local population. For example, additonal clinical staff had been appointed since our July 2019 inspection such that patient satisfaction regarding appointment time, type of offered appointment and the overall appointment making experience were now all comparable to local and national averages.

  • Although patient satisfaction regarding phone access remained below local and national averages, we saw evidence of actions taken to improve performance. This included recruiting additional call handling staff and commissioning a new phone system with increased phone capacity. Patient satisfaction was also being routinely monitored, to ensure that the service reflected people’s needs.

  • The practice had adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.

  • Leadership, governance and practice management arrangements promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Take action to implement a protocol to ensure that appropriate authorisations are in place prior to administering vaccines.
  • Continue to take action to improve childhood immunisations and cervical screening uptake rates.
  • Continue to monitor patient satisfaction on phone access and undertake improvement activity as necessary.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

04 Jul 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We decided to undertake an inspection of Stamford Hill Group Practice following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions:

  • Is it effective?
  • Is it responsive
  • Is it well-led

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as requires improvement overall and good for all population groups except Working age people (including those recently retired and students) which we rated as requires improvement.

We found that:

  • There was no failsafe procedure in place to ensure that test results were received for all cytology samples sent.
  • The practice’s performance for cervical cancer screening was significantly below local and national averages.
  • Patient satisfaction, as evidenced by responses to the national GP patient survey, was, in some areas, significantly below local and national averages.
  • The practice was responsive to the needs of older patients and offered home visits and urgent appointments for those with enhanced needs and complex medical issues.
  • Staff reported that leaders were visible and approachable.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to work to improve uptake of its childhood immunisations programme.
  • Work to ensure that all staff that need one receive regular appraisals.
  • Continue to work to improve patient satisfaction as highlighted in the national GP patient survey.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

29 January 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Stamford Hill Group Practice on 29 January 2015. We rated the practice as 'good' for the service being safe, effective, caring, responsive to people’s needs and well-led. We rated the practice as ‘Good’ for the care provided to older people and people with long term conditions and ‘Good’ for the care provided to, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people living in vulnerable circumstances and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

We gave the practice an overall rating of ‘Good’

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice had robust systems in place to manage safety. Incidents were reported and investigated promptly and learning shared widely with all staff. Systems were in place for safeguarding vulnerable adults and children, infection control and medicine management. There were enough staff to keep people safe.
  • Patient’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with current legislation.
  • Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and there were appraisals and personal development plans for all staff.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. Patients said they could get an appointment in a reasonable time.
  • Complaints were handled appropriately and learning shared widely with all staff.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported.

However, there was also one area of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

The provider should:

  • Ensure non-clinical staff receive annual, written appraisals.

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

24 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three GPs, including one of the practice's GP partners who was also the registered manager, a practice nurse, the practice manager, two members of the reception staff, as well as two health visitors who were working from the practice on the day of our visit. We also spoke with seven people who used the service.

People using the service told us their GP listened to their concerns and explained the treatment options available. Most people felt that their privacy, dignity and independence were respected. The practice ensured that people's cultural needs were being met, this included provision of interpreting service when needed.

People told us that the clinical staff took time to discuss and explain their care and treatment. All the patients we spoke with were happy with the service they received from the practice.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken some steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Staff received appropriate professional development. Patients told us they had confidence in the knowledge and skills of the staff at the practice.

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment through the Patient Participation Group and they were acted on. We also looked at NHS Choices website and saw that people's comments had been responded to by the practice.