• Doctor
  • GP practice

Figges Marsh Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

182 London Road, Mitcham, Surrey, CR4 3LD (020) 8640 4445

Provided and run by:
Figges Marsh Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Figges Marsh Surgery 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 Figges Marsh Surgery, you can give feedback on this service.

13 April 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused review at Figges Marsh Surgery on 13 April 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - good

Effective - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Caring - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Responsive - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Well-led - not inspected, rating of good carried forward from previous inspection

Following our previous inspection on 22 & 27 September and 1 October 2021, the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions apart from providing safe services, which was rated as requires improvement.

At this inspection, we found that the practice had made improvements and is now rated good for providing safe services, as well as for the other key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Figges Marsh Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this review

We carried out this review to follow up concerns from a previous inspection. We looked at action taken in response to recommendations in the last report:

  • Improve the process or recoding blood results to ensure the system is consistent.
  • Continue efforts to increase uptake of childhood immunisations uptake and cervical screening.
  • Continue efforts to establish a Patient Participation Group.

How we carried out the review

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • reviewing data and other information we held
  • requesting evidence from the provider.

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 found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.

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

  • Continue to increase uptake of childhood immunisations uptake and cervical screening.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

22 & 27 September and 01 October 2021

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Figges Marsh Surgery on 22 & 27 September and 01 October 2021 as part of our inspection programme. Overall, the practice is rated as Good. The practice was previously inspected in June 2019. Following that inspection, the practice was rated as requires improvement overall (requires improvement in safe, effective, caring and well-led) for issues in relation to safe care and treatment ,staff training, patient experience and governance arrangements.

The ratings for each key question are:

Safe Requires Improvement

Effective Good

Caring Good

Responsive Good

Well-led Good

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Figges Marsh Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was to follow up the breaches of regulation identified at the previous inspection.

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.

How we carried out the inspection

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

  • Requesting evidence from the provider in advance of the 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 requires improvement for safe due to a more consistent approach required to the recording and the follow up of blood tests for patients on high risk medicines. We have rated population group: working age people as requires improvement due to low uptake of cervical smears.

We found that:

  • The practice had made significant improvements to their governance and systems.
  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Access to care had been improved at the practice with patients’ feedback largely positive about their experience of accessing the practice.
  • The practice 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.

The provider should:

  • Improve the process or recoding blood results to ensure the system of recording blood tests is consistent .
  • Should continue efforts to increase childhood immunisations uptake and cervical smear screening.
  • Should continue efforts to establish a Patient Participation Group.

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

18 June 2019

During a routine inspection

CQC carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Figges Marsh Surgery on 18 June 2019 to follow up on breaches of regulation identified in October 2018 and to review in detail the actions taken by the practice to improve the quality of care and to confirm that the practice was now meeting legal requirements as detailed in the warning notices issued in October 2018

At the last inspection in October 2018 we rated the practice as inadequate for providing safe, responsive and well-led services, and requires improvement for providing effective and caring services because:

  • The systems to assess, monitor and manage risks including health and safety, security, medicines management and the home visiting system were not operating effectively.
  • Not all of the people providing care and treatment had the qualifications, competence, skills and experience to do so safely. In particular:
  • The practice did not seek assurance that appropriate staff checks and mandatory training had been carried out for locum and agency staff.
  • There was no formal system to check single-use equipment; out of date equipment was found.
  • No action had been taken to address concerns found following two NHS England infection control audits.
  • The arrangements for managing risks related to legionella were unclear.
  • The practice did not have assurance that infection control training had been completed by all relevant staff.
  • Cleaning arrangements were not effective.
  • The systems to keep people safeguarded from abuse were not clear.
  • Information management systems did not always ensure safe care and treatment was provided, in a timely way.
  • Incident reporting systems were not operating effectively.
  • The practice did not always identify, report and learn from incidents to improve their processes.
  • The system for dealing with safety and medicine alerts was not clear.

As a result of the findings on the day of the inspection the practice was issued with a warning notice for breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance) and a requirement notice for Regulation 16 (Receiving and acting on complaints). The practice was placed in special measures.

You can read our findings from our last inspections by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Figges Marsh Surgery on our website at https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-605982467

At this inspection, we found that the provider had satisfactorily addressed all of these areas of concern with the exceptions of having signed confidentiality agreements and the utilisation of care plans and templates on the electronic record system were still not consistently used.

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

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to review and amend polices.
  • Continue to identify patients who are also carers to help ensure they are offered appropriate support.
  • Continue to review and act on patients’ views in relation to access to appointments and treating patients with care and concern.
  • Continue to monitor and review engagement with the Patient Participation Group.
  • Continue to review compliance with the complaints process.


I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements made to the quality of care provided by the service.

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

2 October 2018

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as inadequate overall. (Previous rating January 2016 – Good)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Inadequate

Are services effective? – Requires improvement

Are services caring? – Requires improvement

Are services responsive? – Inadequate

Are services well-led? - Inadequate

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Figges marsh Surgery on 2 October 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was carried out in response to concerns from monitoring information we hold. The inspection was carried out using our next phase inspection programme methodology.

At this inspection we found:

  • The systems to keep people safeguarded from abuse were not clear.
  • The practice did not have clear systems to manage risk to patients and staff including risks relating to recruitment, health and safety, security, infection control, medicines management and the home visiting system.
  • Information systems including medical records and incoming correspondence management did not always ensure safe care and treatment was provided, in a timely way.
  • Incident reporting systems were not operating effectively. The practice did not always identify, report and learn from incidents and safety alerts to improve their processes.
  • Care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines in most, but not all cases.
  • The practice did not have clearly structured systems to monitor and support the effectiveness of the care it provided.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect although patients were not always involved in decisions about their care.
  • The systems to support carers and those who had suffered a bereavement were not effective.
  • Patients reported difficulty contacting the practice by telephone. Patients who visited the practice in person were more likely to secure appointments.
  • Not all complaints were handled in line with the practice’s complaints policy and complaints information was not easily accessible to patients.
  • The partners did not work cohesively to be able to deliver high-quality care; there was limited capacity to drive learning and improvement.
  • The practice did not foster a culture where quality and safety was prioritised and staff did not always work as a team.
  • Governance arrangements were unclear.
  • There were limited systems to gather and utilise feedback from patients and staff.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care
  • Ensure there is an effective system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints by patients and other persons in relation to the carrying on of the regulated activity.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the systems for identifying and supporting carers and those who have suffered a bereavement.
  • Review and improve access to appointments, including the ability for patients to contact the practice easily by telephone.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any population group, key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Special measures will give people who use the service the reassurance that the care they get should improve.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP
Chief Inspector of General Practice

28 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Figges Marsh Surgery on 28 January 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.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The majority of 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, although information about translation services was not available to patients in the waiting room.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • Urgent appointments were usually available on the day they were requested, but some patients said that it was difficult to get through to the practice by telephone to make an appointment.
  • The practice was receiving feedback through the GP Patient Survey and Friends and Family test, but no feedback was proactively sought from patients. There was no functional patient participation group.
  • Risks to patients were generally well assessed and managed.

The provider should:

  • Continue to review patient feedback on appointment availability and telephone access.

  • Review quality improvement activity, making more active use of the patient participation group, audit and other evidence to monitor and improve services.

  • Provide information for patients on translation services in the reception and/or waiting areas.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice