The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Woodlands Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Woodlands Practice, 11 Red Hill, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 6DB (020) 8468 7779

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

16 August 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Woodlands Practice on 16 August 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.

2 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Woodlands Practice on 2 August 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.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep patients safe. Blank prescription forms and pads were securely stored and there were systems in place to monitor the use of prescription pads. However, a record was not kept of batch numbers of blank prescriptions placed in printers.
  • 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 did not always find it easy to book a routine appointment with a GP but there was continuity of care with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was 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.

There were areas where the provider should make improvements.

  • The provider should keep a record of batch numbers of blank prescriptions placed in printers.
  • The provider should continue to monitor patient satisfaction regarding the availability of routine appointments.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

16 August 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the service told us they were very well treated by reception staff at the practice. One person told us the receptionists were "really lovely" and "always helpful". Another person said the reception staff were "cheery" and other people confirmed that reception staff were very helpful and made an effort to find them an appointment that suited them, and we observed this on the day of our visit. Some people told us it could be difficult to get an appointment that suited them but they were generally seen in an emergency. People told us the doctors at the practice explained things to them and had specialist knowledge. One person said they were "very impressed" with the medical care they received.

We found that people were consulted with about their care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that ensured the safety and welfare of people using the service. There were plans in place to deal with emergencies and the practice managed medicines safely. We found the provider had systems in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection and to monitor the quality of the service and ensure the safety and welfare of people using the service.