The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

The Allum Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Fairlop Road, Leytonstone, London, E11 1BN (020) 8539 2513

Provided and run by:
The Allum Medical Centre

All Inspections

19 January 2024

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced assessment of The Allum Medical Centre on 19 January 2024. The assessment focused on the responsive key question.

Following our previous inspection on 22 October 2019 the practice was rated good for the responsive key question and good overall. The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Allum Medical Centre 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

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:

  • The provider established an award-winning Specialist Diabetes Service which improved outcomes for patients.
  • Complaints were satisfactorily handled in a timely manner and were used to drive improvement.
  • According to the National GP Patient Survey results the practice had continued to perform below national ‘access’ averages for all key indicators. Since the last inspection in 2019, patient satisfaction has been on a downward trend in all of the key indicators. Although there has been an upward trend since 2022 in respect of patient satisfaction with appointment times.
  • During the assessment process, the provider highlighted the efforts they are making or are planning to make to improve the responsiveness of the service for their patient population. A recent in-house patient survey was conducted to monitor the impact of these efforts and indicated positive results. The effect of these efforts, however, are not yet reflected in the most recent National GP Patient Survey results.

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

  • Continue to identify ways of improving patient satisfaction in relation to access to appointments.

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

22 October 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Allum Medical Centre on 22 October 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 all population groups except for people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia) which is rated as outstanding for being provided with effective care.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • 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 care.

  • Learning from significant events and complaints was not always adequately shared.

The practice should:

  • Improve the system for sharing learning.
  • Continue to work to improve patient satisfaction with access to the practice.

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

6 November 2014

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We inspected The Allum Medical Centre on 06 November 2014. This was an announced comprehensive inspection. Overall the practice is rated as good

We rated the practice as good for being safe, effective, caring, responsive to people’s needs and well-led. We rated the practice as good for the care provided to older people, people with long term conditions, families, children and young people, working age people (including those recently retired and students), people living in vulnerable circumstances and people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia).

Our key findings were as follows:

  • The practice completed reviews of significant events and other incidents and there was evidence that these were used as learning points for clinical staff;
  • Training records showed that staff were up to date regarding mandatory training such as safeguarding children and vulnerable adults. We also noted a good skill mix amongst the doctors. For example, some had undertaken further specialist training in sexual and reproductive medicine;
  • Patients spoke positively about how they were treated by staff and we noted that this was consistent with comment cards and patient survey feedback;
  • The practice had an active Patient Participation Group (PPG - a patient led forum for sharing patients’ views with the practice). Patients spoke positively about how their views were taken on board, highlighting for example the introduction of an online facility to order repeat prescriptions and make appointments; so as to relieve pressure on the practice’s phone system.
  • The practice had clear leadership. Senior GPs saw the vision of the practice as being to deliver good quality, patient centred care. We spoke with a range of staff including practice manager, reception staff, the medical care practitioner and GPs, who all understood their roles and responsibilities in delivering this vision.

However, there were areas of practice where improvements were needed. Importantly, the provider should:

  • Amend its current cleaning schedule to include individual practice areas such as waiting rooms and treatment rooms;
  • Ensure that all non clinical staff undertaking chaperoning duties receive training.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice