The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Forest Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

26 Pyrles Lane, Loughton, Essex, IG10 2NH (020) 8508 4580

Provided and run by:
Forest Practice

All Inspections

20 November 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Forest Practice on 20 November 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.

8 December 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Forest Practice on 9 December 2015. 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.
  • There was an effective system in place for reporting, recording and investigation of significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ individual needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance, with patients and, where appropriate, relatives involvement.
  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Information about services was available through a variety of sources and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure in place. It was evident that staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients via the Patient Participation Group (PPG), which it acted on.
  • A culture of openness and honesty was encouraged by the partners. The provider and staff were aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Display information about how to complain.
  • Consider indicating on policies the date they were written and/or the review date.
  • They may wish to consider how they can organise their training records so training and training needs are easily identified.
  • Consideration of how staff will be able to identify patients who become acutely unwell in the waiting areas.
  • Review the security of their prescription printer paper when the consulting rooms are not in use.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

When we carried out an inspection of Forest Practice on 25 September 2013, we found that people were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed. At that inspection we found that the provider had not maintained appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene in relation to the premises used and that recommendations arising from an independent infection control audit had not been actioned or implemented.

When we reviewed the service on 05 March 2014, we found that the provider had made the improvements necessary to ensure that appropriate guidance was followed and that people were protected from the risk of infection.

25 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection on 25 September 2013, we saw that on arrival at the service staff spoke politely to people and consultations were carried out in private treatment rooms. One person told us: 'They treat me very well and I'd like to include the receptionists in that. The nurses here are fantastic.' Another person told us: 'They are always pleasant. I've never had one who was rude.'

We looked at a number of people's electronic records. The service sought consent before any treatment was provided. People told us that their treatment was clearly explained to them and they were able to ask questions and make choices about their treatment or medication. This enabled people to make informed decisions regarding their care.

Information was clearly displayed for people, including health promotion, access to support services and information about the practice and the services provided.

We found that the service had infection control training in place but had not responded to concerns raised from infection control auditing.

During our inspection we saw from the records we looked at that staff had received regular training, supervisions and appraisals. Appropriate pre-employment checks had been carried out.

The people we spoke with were happy with the service and did not have any concerns or issues about the care and treatment they received.