The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr. D. Colvin & Dr. O. B. Isinkaye Also known as Abridge Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Surgery, 37 Ongar Road, Abridge, Romford, Essex, RM4 1UH (01992) 812961

Provided and run by:
Dr. D. Colvin & Dr. O. B. Isinkaye

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr. D. Colvin & Dr. O. B. Isinkaye 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 Dr. D. Colvin & Dr. O. B. Isinkaye, you can give feedback on this service.

09 September 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused comprehensive inspection at Dr. D. Colvin & Dr. O.B. Isinkaye on 09 September 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Requires Improvement

Effective – Good

Well-led – Good

Following our previous inspection on 23 September 2019, the practice was rated Requires Improvement overall. The practice was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive services and Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led services.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for on Dr. D. Colvin & Dr. O. B. Isinkaye our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection.

This inspection was a focused inspection to follow up on:

  • Safe, effective and well-led key questions.
  • Breaches of regulation and areas where the provider ‘should’ improve, identified in the previous inspection.

How we carried out the inspection

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

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 :

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit
  • Sending a questionnaire to practice staff to complete.
  • Talking to external stakeholders

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 good for all populations groups except for people with long term conditions which was rated as requires improvement.

We found that:

  • The practice had acted on issues identified at the last inspection.
  • The practice had clear systems, practice and processes to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • The practice did not always demonstrate safe and effective systems. Oversight of staff immunisations and systems to manage premises/security and health and safety action plans required strengthening.
  • The practice learned and made improvements when things went wrong. However, staff did not understand how to raise concerns externally, and process did not encourage a culture of candour, openness and honesty.
  • The practice carried out clinical audits as part of their quality improvement activities. However, the process did not always demonstrate identify improvements.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • 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.

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

  • Improve processes related to checking immunisation of staff.
  • Continue to review systems in place to ensure effective arrangements for identifying, managing and mitigating risks.
  • Strengthen the system for recording and acting on significant events.
  • Continue to improve the uptake of child immunisations and improve the monitoring of patients with long-term conditions.
  • Develop audit processes so that improvements are clearly identified.
  • Strengthen systems to allow staff protected time for learning and development and access to regular appraisals.
  • Ensure that the recording of DNACPR decisions are consistently documented in health records.

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

23 September 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an inspection of Dr. D. Colvin & Dr. O. B. Isinkaye known as Abridge Surgery on 23 September 2019 due to the length of time since the last inspection. We previously inspected this practice on 21 April 2015. Following our review of the information available to us, including information provided by the practice, we focused our inspection on the following key questions:

  • Are services at this location effective?
  • Are services at this location well-led?

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 requires improvement overall and requires improvement for all population groups.

We have rated this practice as requires improvement for providing effective services because:

  • Not all staff had received required training or an appraisal of their performance.
  • Cervical screening uptake was below national targets.
  • Changes in clinical guidance was not being cascaded to relevant staff.
  • Patients who were pre-diabetic were not being managed effectively.

We have rated this practice as requires improvement for providing well-led services because:

  • Leaders did not always have a clear picture of performance.
  • Systems of review and audit had not been effectively implemented.
  • The system for managing patient safety and medicine alerts was not effective.
  • The system for managing reviews of patients on high risk medicines was not effective

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Record when change to clinical guidance is discussed at clinical meetings and evidence that this is routinely considered.
  • Review the list of pre-diabetic patients to ensure that this accurately reflects the current position.

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

21 April 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a follow up inspection of Dr D. Colvin and Dr O. B. Isinkaye (also known as Abridge Surgery). The purpose of the inspection was to check the practice had addressed regulatory breaches identified during their last comprehensive inspection conducted on 21 October 2014.

We found the practice had reviewed their systems for assessing and monitoring the quality of service they provided. The practice had introduced systems and processes to ensure medication was in date and appropriately stored. Patient directives were appropriately completed and endorsed by clinical staff to ensure the safe and appropriate administration of medicines that can be injected. The practice had revised their contingency arrangements to ensure plans were in place to manage unforeseeable disruptions that may occur to the service.

21 October 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

On 21 October 2014 we conducted an announced comprehensive inspection of Dr D Colvin and Dr O B Isinkaye. We found the practice was good.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice was a warm, friendly, caring and responsive practice when addressing patients’ needs and working in partnership with other health and social care services to deliver individualised care.
  • The clinical and administrative team had a solid understanding of their patient population needs and provided a highly individualised and personal service to patients.
  • Partner health services reported the practice to be open and receptive to joint working. They had a commitment to embracing developments, such as in their work with the end of life care coordinator.

However, there were also areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements. 

Importantly, the provider must:

  • Ensure their medical supplies are in date to avoid out of date medicines being used in error.
  • Ensure the correct endorsement and delegation of clinical authority to administer a drug or medicine that can be injected.
  • Ensure contingency arrangements are in place so patients can access care should the practice experience disruption to their services.

In addition the provider should:

  • Establish formal channels of communication with patients to regularly capture their views and experiences of the service.
  • Complete clinical audits to identify that care is being provided in line with standards.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice