The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Brookfield Park Surgery

2 Brookfield Park, London, NW5 1ER (020) 7485 7363

Provided and run by:
Brookfield Park Surgery

All Inspections

11 August 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak with patients as part of this inspection. This was a follow up inspection to check that Brookfield Park Surgery had taken action to address areas of non-compliance we found at our last inspection.

At our previous inspection of 26 September 2013 we found that Brookfield Park Surgery did not have suitable arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We also found that there were not suitable arrangements in place to protect people from the risk of infection.

The provider told us the actions they would take to address the non-compliance. When we inspected Brookfield Park Surgery on 11 August 2014, we found that the provider had suitable arrangements to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The surgery had also made improvements in its infection control arrangements.

26 September 2013

During a routine inspection

Brookfield Park Surgery had 3400 patients registered at the time of the inspection. The provider employed one male and two female GPs, one nurse, a practice manager, two receptionists and two administrative support staff. Patients were seen in four treatment rooms.

Patients told us that they felt their needs were met and that they were happy with the quality of the service. One patient told us 'I received a good treatment.' Another patient told us 'I am able to see a female doctor' and that they thought that the practice needed 'no improvement.'

It appeared that patients' treatment needs were met and their rights and dignity were respected. However,they were unable to provide emergency support to a patient who may need immediate supply of oxygen or when someone goes into cardiac arrest.

The provider did not have systems in place to ensure patients were protected from the risk of acquiring health related infection. No cleaning schedules were available and the provider did not assess risks related to infection control.

We found that patients were protected from abuse because the provider followed correct policies and procedures. Staff were aware how to recognise abuse and how to respond to it.

Patients' records were fit for purpose and accessed only by authorised staff. The provider had suitable systems to monitor the quality of the service.The provider took account of patients' views and opinions in order to improve the service.