• Doctor
  • GP practice

The Mayfair Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

3-5 Weighhouse Street, London, W1K 5LS (020) 7493 1647

Provided and run by:
Dr Stephen Thomas Boyd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: We conducted an assessment between 6 to 10 June 2025. The inspection was carried out due to an aged rating since the last inspection. The inspection team included a lead inspector, supported by a second inspector, a GP Specialist Advisor (SPA), and a nurse SPA. We carried out the remote clinical searches and remote interviews on 6 and 9 June and a site visit on 10 June.

The Mayfair Medical Centre is a GP practice that delivers services to 4,100 patients under a contract held with NHS England. The National General Practice Profile shows that 62.34% of registered patients are White, 18.5% Asian, 4.26% Black, 6.15% Mixed, and 8.74% Other. Information published by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that deprivation within the practice population group is in the 8th decile (8 of 10). The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others. The practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide the following regulated activities: diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery services, and treatment of disease, disorder, or injury. This assessment considered the demographics of people using the practice, the context the practice was working within, and how this impacted service delivery. Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

The practice had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people to make decisions in people’s best interests where people did not have capacity.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The practice supported staff wellbeing.

People were involved in decisions about their care. The practice provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the practice took it seriously and acted on it. The practice was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The practice worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas. Since the last inspection, the practice had made improvements and is no longer requires improvement.

18 and 27 January 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Mayfair Medical Centre on 18 and 27 January 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as Requires Improvement.

The key questions are rated as:

Safe - Requires improvement

Effective - Requires improvement

Caring - Good

Responsive - Requires improvement

Well-led - Requires improvement

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a comprehensive inspection. This was a new registration and we carried out this inspection as part of our regulatory functions.

At this inspection we covered all key questions:

  • Are services safe?
  • Are services effective?
  • Are services caring?
  • Are services responsive?
  • Are services well-led?

How we carried out the inspection

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

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:

  • There was a lack of good governance in some areas.
  • Recruitment checks including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) were not always carried out in accordance with regulations and records were not kept in staff files.
  • The practice did not have any formal monitoring system in place to assure themselves that blank prescription forms and pads were recorded correctly, and their use was monitored in line with national guidance.
  • Our clinical records searches showed that the practice did not always have effective systems in place to ensure the monitoring of some high risk medicines and patients with long term conditions.
  • Risks to patients were not assessed and well managed in relation to some safety alerts, Patient Specific Directions (PSDs) and the management of legionella.
  • The Patient Participation Group (PPG) was not active.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Feedback from patients was positive about the way staff treated people.
  • The practice carried out repeated clinical audits.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We found three breaches of regulations. The provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure recruitment procedures are established and operated effectively to ensure only fit and proper persons are employed.

The provider should:

  • Continue to encourage the patient for cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening and childhood immunisation uptake.
  • Establish the Patient Participation Group (PPG).

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 Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services