Archived: The Practice

Updated 17 June 2019

The Practice was inspected on the 25 April 2019. The inspection team comprised a lead CQC inspector and a GP Specialist Advisor.

We carried out this focused inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

During the inspection we utilised a number of methods to support our judgement of the services provided. For example, we interviewed staff, observed staff interaction with patients and reviewed documents relating to the service.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

Is it safe?

Is it effective?

Is it caring?

Is it responsive to people’s needs?

Is it well-led?

These questions therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 17 June 2019

We undertook a comprehensive inspection of The Practice on the 21 June 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. We found that the service was providing effective, caring, responsive, well led care however, they were not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

The full comprehensive report following the inspection on 21 June 2018 can be found by

selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Practice on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We undertook an announced focused inspection of The Practice on the 25 April 2019 to confirm the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 21 June 2018. These were;

• Not all arrangements for dealing with medical emergencies were effective. The adult pads for the defibrillator had expired in 2016 and there were no children’s pads. and there was no oxygen held onsite.
• There were no quality improvement activities in the service.
• Review the need for a formalised business continuity plan.
• There was no oxygen on site and no risk assessment for its omission.
• The service did not stock all of the recommended emergency medicines.

This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and additional improvements made since our last inspection.

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The Practice is a private doctor consultation and treatment service. The clinic offers private consultations with a general physician with additional medical screening and vaccination services. There is one male GP supported by a medical secretary/practice manager. The service operates five days a week from 6B Sloane square, London, the building is shared with another private doctor. Services are provided on the second floor, there is one large doctor's consulting room and shared administration and reception areas.

The service is open from Monday to Friday 8.30am to 6pm.

Dr John Gayner is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received feedback from four people about the service, including comment cards, all of which were very positive about the service and indicated that clients were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were described as helpful, caring, thorough and professional.

Our key findings were:

• Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. The service lead was the lead member of staff for safeguarding and had undertaken adult safeguarding to level two and child safeguarding training to level three. Whilst the provider did not directly provide clinical services for patients under the age of 18 there is an expectation that staff working in a health care setting are trained in child safeguarding in line with the intercollegiate guidance.
• The service had conducted quality improvement activity since the last inspection.
• The provider was aware of current evidence based guidance and they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out his role.
• The provider was aware of their responsibility to respect people’s diversity and human rights.
• Patients were able to access care and treatment from the clinic within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
• There was a complaints procedure in place and information on how to complain was readily available.
• Governance arrangements were in place. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
• The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
• The service 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 service had systems in place to collect and analyse feedback from patients.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care