The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Abbey Road Medical Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

28A Abbey Road, London, E15 3LT (020) 8534 2515

Provided and run by:
Abbey Road Medical Practice

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Abbey Road Medical Practice 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 Abbey Road Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

20 April 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced review at Abbey Road Medical Practice on 20 April 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Set out the ratings for each key question

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Caring - Good

Responsive - Good

Well-led – Good

Following our previous inspection on 18 November 2019, the practice was rated Good overall and for the key questions effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The practice was rated requires improvement for providing safe services and issued a requirement notice for Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 Good governance.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Abbey Road Medical Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this review

This review was a focused review of information without undertaking a site visit to follow up on breaches of Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 Good governance. At the previous inspection we found:

  • Most systems, practices and processes to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse were in place, but some had gaps including health and safety and staff checks.
  • The way the practice was led and managed generally promoted the delivery of high- quality, person-centre care. Some areas of governance and risk management needed reviewing which was underway.

We also followed up on areas we identified the practice should improve at the last inspection. Specifically:

  • Review and embed arrangements to ensure improved performance for clinical cancer care indicators.
  • Review and improve arrangements to ensure formalised clinical oversight for practice nurse prescribers and pharmacists.

How we carried out the review

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 reviews differently.

This review was carried out without visiting the location by requesting documentary 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 have rated this practice as Good overall and for all population groups.

The practice had made the necessary improvements to the delivery of care to ensure patients were kept safe and protected from avoidable harm:

  • The practice had improved and remedied safety concerns including fire safety, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH), and premises safety including boiler and fixed wiring.
  • Arrangements were in place to ensure effective systems for staff HR checks including DBS, staff occupational and health immunity status, and clinician’s registration with the appropriate body checks.
  • There was oversight of role specific and mandatory staff training, including to ensure fire marshals cover across the rota.
  • Published data cancer care performance indicators had improved since our previous inspection including urgent referrals detection rate and screening for breast, bowel and cervical cancer.
  • The practice implemented arrangements to assure itself of sufficiently comprehensive, effective and sustainable systems and processes. For example, the practice engaged input from external consultants where appropriate and reviewed processes for risk management including health and safety, HR procedures reviews, and relating to Infection Protection and Control during the pandemic.

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.

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 November 2019

During a routine inspection

We decided to undertake an inspection of this service on 18 November 2019 following our annual review of the information available to us. This inspection looked at the following key questions; are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

The practice was previously inspected in August 2016 and was rated as good overall. Our judgement of the quality of care at this service is based 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 population groups.

We found that:

  • 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 generally promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care. Some areas of governance and risk management needed reviewing which was underway.

We rated the practice as requires improvement for providing safe services because:

  • Most systems, practices and processes to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse were in place, but some had gaps including health and safety and staff checks.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

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

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and embed arrangements to ensure improved performance for clinical cancer care indicators.
  • Review and improve arrangements to ensure formalised clinical oversight for practice nurse prescribers and pharmacists.

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

17 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice


We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Abbey Road Medical practice on 17 August 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 been trained to provide them with 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, however, the practice did not have its own website.
  • Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • 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.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Develop a practice website to signpost their services.

  • Review how carers are identified and recorded on the patient record system to ensure information, advice and support is made available to all.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice