This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

CAMHS won't see you now

Professor Steve Field, I am still awaiting your response

From Dr Paul Cundy

Dear Professor Field,

I am writing this open letter to you because it appears to be the only mechanism available to us to communicate with you or your organisation.

We were rated as needing improvement in your inspection report of June 2015. After it was published, concerns were raised in a variety of quarters.

We raised two complaints directly, the first about the general process of the inspection visit and secondly about the GP who advised the inspection team. These were both upheld but despite the obvious implications for the report you made no amendments to it.

In July 2015 the chief officer of our CCG wrote to you stating that he was ‘surprised by the findings’ in your report. He countered that the CCG had a ‘positive picture of the practice’ and expressed concerns about your report ‘from the perspective of accuracy’.

The chairman of our defunct PPG reviewed the report, he concluded it was ‘misleading’. He wrote ‘frankly, I consider this to be an unbalanced report. It does not do any credit to the CQC and does not benefit patients’. He commented that the report was a ‘rag bag of findings, not clearly distinguishing between matters or major, minor or no concern to patient well-being’. He continued that many parts of the report ‘hardly merit public mention let alone major public criticism’.

Our practice MP, the Rt Hon Stephen Hammond was concerned that patients might not register with us because of your report. He attempted to facilitate a meeting between your London inspectorate and our practice to discuss the issues. The deputy chief inspector PMS for London agreed to meet with Mr Hammond to discuss the report, but point blank refused to attend if I was there.

Having made so little progress through those channels we were luckily able to meet with the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health, to discuss your report. In describing us as ‘good guys’ he suggested that even the CQC can make mistakes. Mr Hunt said that if we wrote to him he would raise it with you directly. In September 2015 Mr Hunt confirmed that he had copied our letter to you in anticipation of your responding. We have not yet heard anything from you.

We had a further focused inspection visit in December 2015 and we raised these issues with that inspection team. Some six months later they have just responded, dismissing the comments from the ex-chair of our PPG as being from ‘a single patient’ and stating that they had not been asked to address the issues raised in our letter to Mr Hunt.

Following the December visit you judged us as being inadequate because we have not implemented recommendations from a London CSU’s Infection Control Audit, namely that we should remove our carpets and have handwashing signs at every sink. Your own website confirms we can have carpets and do not need handwashing signs. So you find us inadequate for failing to implement recommendations that you do not yourself support. If we did ever meet perhaps you would be able to explain that conundrum?

Yours sincerely,

Dr Paul Cundy

On behalf of Wimbledon Village Surgery


If you’d like to write to Pulse email


Rate this article  (4.74 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (15)

  • you won't get a reply as Steve Field is too busy crying about how ashamed he is of General practice.

    have you not thought of legal action?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I find it astounding that Profeesor fields practice, Bellevue Practice Birmingham, still hasn't been inspected. Surely his practice should have been one if the first.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • I feel for you Dr Cundy. The CQC management's attitude is a national disgrace and Prof Field seems to be shameless.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • look on the bright side, with any luck you won't need inspecting again for 5 years. Though you might have paid them £40,000 by then for the privilege of being shafted again. Pass the lube

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dear Dr Cundy,

    Maybe you are a bit more outspoken than they want you to be, huh? Keep up the good work and don't give them an inch.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Time we all just started contributing to a central 'sue their arse' fund.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been removed by the moderator

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Message to GPC: question of mass non payment of fees to this gang should be explored fully.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been removed by the moderator

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Keep up the good work Dr Cundy . I am looking forwards to your next instalment of this long running saga.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say