The Acorn & Gaumont House Surgery

Updated 22 April 2024

Date of assessment: 18 June to 19 June 2024. The Acorn & Gaumont House Surgery is an NHS GP practice located in Southwark, South London in an area of high deprivation. There were approximately 9,000 people registered with the service at the time of our assessment. We last rated this service under our previous methodology on 25 March 2022. The practice was rated inadequate overall (Inadequate for safe and well led key questions, good for caring and responsive and requires improvement for effective) and was placed in special measures. A focused inspection was carried out in July and September 2022, to ensure the issues identified had been addressed, however the practice was not rated during the inspection. For this assessment we focused on the four key questions of safe, effective, responsive and well-led and have combined the scores for these areas with scores from the last rated inspection. This service has been in Special Measures since 25 March 2022. The provider demonstrated improvements that have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in special measures. However, the provider remains in breach of one regulation in safe care and treatment and we found a further breach in good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 22 April 2024

We reviewed the GP patient survey, published in July 2023. The practice had performed below national ‘access’ averages for the question about how easy it was to contact the practice on the telephone. The practice had performed close to or above the national average for the remaining three indicators. However, there was also a downward trend in satisfaction rates for all key indicators over the previous year. We reviewed the information available on NHS.uk website. Since 2022 15 comments had been posted with 7 positive comments about all staff, 2 mixed reviews from patients praising staff but who experienced delays in getting through on the telephone, and 6 negative comments about prescriptions, the care received and the difficulty with getting through on the telephone. The practice responded to two of these comments. The practice told us they had plans to improve engagement with patients by reconvening their Patient Participation Group (PPG). The practice was also a member of a Primary Care Network (PCN) and made use of feedback obtained by the PCN.