The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Forge Close Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Forge Close, Hayes, Bromley, Kent, BR2 7LL (020) 8462 9427

Provided and run by:
Forge Close Surgery

All Inspections

30 November 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced assessment of Forge Close Surgery on 30 November 2023. The assessment focused on the responsive key question.

Following our previous inspection on 6 March 2019 the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions. The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Forge Close Surgery on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The practice continues to be rated as good overall as this was the rating given at the last comprehensive inspection. However, we have now rated the responsive key question as requires improvement as a result of the findings of this focused assessment.

Safe - Good

Effective – Good

Caring – Good

Responsive – Requires improvement

Well-led - Good

Why we carried out this assessment

We carried out this assessment as part of our work to understand how practices are working to try to meet demand for access and to better understand the experiences of people who use services and providers. We recognise the work that GP practices have been engaged in to continue to provide safe, quality care to the people they serve. We know colleagues are doing this while demand for general practice remains exceptionally high, with more appointments being provided than ever. In this challenging context, access to general practice remains a concern for people. Our strategy makes a commitment to deliver regulation driven by people’s needs and experiences of care. These assessments of the responsive key question include looking at what practices are doing innovatively to improve patient access to primary care and sharing this information to drive improvement.

How we carried out the assessment

This assessment was carried out remotely. It did not include a site visit.

The process included:

  • Conducting an interview with the provider and members of staff using video conferencing.
  • Reviewing patient feedback from a range of sources
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • Reviewing data we hold about the service
  • Seeking information/feedback from relevant 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 found that:

  • During the assessment process, the provider told us that they regularly monitored the availability of appointments.
  • The provider invited patients to give feedback after each appointment and this feedback was shared with the PPG so that improvements could be made.
  • The effect of these efforts are not reflected in the National GP Patient Survey results. The provider had performed below national ‘access’ averages for questions about their experience of making an appointment, satisfaction with appointment times and satisfaction with the appointments they were offered.

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

  • Continue to identify ways of improving patient satisfaction in relation to their experience of making an appointment, appointment times and the appointments offered.

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 Health Care

6 March 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr S. Young, Dr S. Sivarajan and Dr H. Singh on 6 March 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

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 providing safe, effective, caring responsive and well led services.

We have rated the practice as good for providing effective and responsive care to older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people, those whose circumstances may make them vulnerable and those experiencing poor mental health.

We found that:

  • 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.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care. Leaders had the capacity and skills to deliver high-quality, sustainable care. They had a shared purpose, strived to deliver and motivated staff to succeed.
  • Feedback from patients who used the service, those close to them and external stakeholders was continually positive about the way staff cared for patients.
  • Staff told us they felt supported and engaged with managers and there was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

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

  • Consider placing alerts on the record of family members if a child in the household was on the at-risk register.
  • Consider ways to increase the identification of carers.
  • Continue with the clinical audit process and evidence quality improvement by conducting two cycle audits.
  • Implement the recommendations of the Legionella risk assessment that had been carried out on 11 July 2018.
  • Review and work towards decreasing the prescribing of antibiotics for uncomplicated urinary tract infections.
  • Continue monitoring and improving the process for monitoring patients’ health in relation to the use of high risk medicines (for example, warfarin, methotrexate and lithium) with appropriate monitoring and clinical review prior to prescribing.

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

4 February 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr S. Young, Dr S. Sivarajan and Dr H. Singh / Forge Close Surgery on 4 February 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.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Many patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day. However about half the patients who had completed the national GP patient survey indicated that it was difficult to get through easily to the surgery by phone.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

There were areas of practice where the provider should make improvements:

  • Ensure that the practice has a supply of oxygen and all staff know how to use it.

  • Ensure that the practice reviews the feedback from national GP patient survey especially on the practice’s opening hours and telephone access to identify and act on further areas that can be improved.

  • Ensure that the learning from investigations are shared with all members of staff.

  • Ensure that the practice proactively recruit and engage PPG members to regularly meet.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice