Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Belmont Hill Surgery, London.

Belmont Hill Surgery in London is a Doctors/GP specialising in the provision of services relating to diagnostic and screening procedures, maternity and midwifery services, services for everyone, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 10th July 2017

Belmont Hill Surgery is managed by Belmont Hill Surgery.

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2017-07-10
    Last Published 2017-07-10

Local Authority:

    Lewisham

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

18th May 2017 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 14 April 2016 at Belmont Hill Surgery. At that inspection the practice was rated good overall, but as requires improvement for some aspects of providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the 14 April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Belmont Hill Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 18 May 2017 to check that the practice had followed their plan to address the findings we had identified in our previous inspection on 14 April 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice remains rated as good. Following the desk-top review we found the practice to be good for providing safe services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Cleaning arrangements for the practice had been reviewed which included the implementation of a comprehensive cleaning schedule and audit process.
  • Findings from the infection prevention and control audit had been addressed and improvements identified and actioned.
  • Processes had been put in place to check emergency medical equipment was fit for use.
  • Systems had been implemented to ensure blank printer prescription security and to track their use through the practice in line with national guidance.
  • Improvement grant funding had been approved in principle to make adaptations in the practice relating to auditory privacy and accessible toilet facilities.
  • An event had been arranged in the practice with Carers Lewisham to promote the identification of carers in the practice.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14th April 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 14 April 2016 at Belmont Hill Surgery. At that inspection the practice was rated good overall, but as requires improvement for some aspects of providing safe services. The full comprehensive report on the 14 April 2016 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Belmont Hill Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

This inspection was a desk-based review carried out on 18 May 2017 to check that the practice had followed their plan to address the findings we had identified in our previous inspection on 14 April 2016. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Overall the practice remains rated as good. Following the desk-top review we found the practice to be good for providing safe services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Cleaning arrangements for the practice had been reviewed which included the implementation of a comprehensive cleaning schedule and audit process.
  • Findings from the infection prevention and control audit had been addressed and improvements identified and actioned.
  • Processes had been put in place to check emergency medical equipment was fit for use.
  • Systems had been implemented to ensure blank printer prescription security and to track their use through the practice in line with national guidance.
  • Improvement grant funding had been approved in principle to make adaptations in the practice relating to auditory privacy and accessible toilet facilities.
  • An event had been arranged in the practice with Carers Lewisham to promote the identification of carers in the practice.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14th April 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We carried out this visit to check that the provider had taken steps to rectify the gaps in recruitment we found at our previous inspection in February 2014.

We found that the provider had introduced a new pre-employment check policy, the gaps previously found in employment histories for two staff had been rectified, and the provider was able to show us a list of professional registration checks they had carried out with the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

On this occasion we did not speak with users of the service.

7th February 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with six patients. One patient told us, “The GPs are lovely. They treat me as a person and spend enough time with me”. Another patient told us, “I find the GPs nice. They take their time and explain things”.

We saw the GPs kept patients records up to date. Patients told us they were satisfied they were referred on to specialists when needed, and that they were also able to get test results back quickly and easily.

Staff were provided with policies and procedures relating to child protection and the protection of vulnerable adults, and they were able to describe possible signs of abuse and knew who to report concerns to.

The practice had recruitment and selection processes in place but we found they were not robust enough. Not all appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

The practice had a number of systems in place to assess the quality of the service it provided, including surveying patients to gather their views. It had a patient participation group, which gave us positive feedback during our inspection.

 

 

Latest Additions: