The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Lonsdale Medical Centre Partnership

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Clanricarde Gardens, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 1PE (01892) 530329

Provided and run by:
The Lonsdale Medical Centre Partnership

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

20 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about The Lonsdale Medical Centre Partnership on 20 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.

18 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Lonsdale Medical Centre Partnership on 18 January 2017. 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 for reporting and recording significant events. We saw a number of examples of significant events used to identify any opportunity for learning.
  • 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. Opportunities for staff development were valued.
  • The practice was proactive about staff development and encouraging staff to achieve their potential, which were regularly reviewed. We saw a number of examples of positive development opportunities.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. Many of the comment cards we received reported an excellent service, friendly helpful staff and good access to appointments.
  • The practice was aware a number of patients commuted to London and offered an electronic prescription service, including access to prescription collections at pharmacies in London.
  • 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 a mission to continually improve the quality, range and way they delivered care in consultation with their patients, their staff and other health care professionals within the local community.

  • On a monthly basis patients with multiple chronic diseases were checked so that the patients’ health and care reviews could be combined into one session. The records were also checked to make sure that the correct blood tests had been done

  • The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The patient participation group had organized local health awareness events. For example, a recent educational event had covered subjects such as fire safety awareness, Alzheimer’s and information on diabetes.
  • The practice held a dementia clinic in conjunction with a dementia specialist from Carers First. Patients and their carers were invited to spend half an hour with Carers First, followed by a 10 minute GP appointment. The practice also held an education event for patient’s carers and families.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Ensure patients with a learning disability are offered an annual review.

  • Improve the number of clinical audits and re-audits undertaken to improve patient outcomes.

  • Ensure the systems to monitor water temperature testing in relation to legionella are followed.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

20 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Lonsdale Medical Practice is located in a large converted town house in the centre of Tunbridge Wells. It provides primary medical services to 6140 patients.  This was the first inspection since registration. The announced inspection at Lonsdale Medical Practice took place on 20 May 2014. We spoke with 11 patients including one member of the practices patient participation group (PPG).

Our key findings were:

  • The practice delivered care in a safe and clean environment. Systems were in place to report and learn from incidents.
  • The practice provided effective care; it achieved 97% overall of the Quality and Outcomes Framework 2013/14 and 100% for the clinical domain.
  • Patients were overwhelmingly positive about the care they received. Staff were caring and compassionate and treated patients with dignity and respect.
  • Patients were very satisfied with accessing appointments both urgent and routine with a GP of their choice
  • The practice leadership fostered an environment of supportive team work to improve patient outcomes and the patient experience.

The practice provided care for the specific population groups: older people, people with long term conditions, mothers with babies, children and young people, the working-age population and those recently retired, people in vulnerable circumstances who may have poor access to primary care, people experiencing mental health problems. However, people in all these groups were seen by the practice. The practice had a lower proportion of people in vulnerable circumstances compared to the clinical commissioning group (CCG) and national average.