You are here

Dr O'Keeffe's Practice Good Also known as The Surgery

We are carrying out a review of quality at Dr O'Keeffe's Practice. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Reports


Inspection carried out on 02 May 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr O’Keeffe’s Practice to follow up on breaches of regulations.

CQC inspected the service on 11 May 2018 and asked the provider to make improvements regarding safe and effective care and well-led service. We checked these areas as part of this comprehensive inspection and found those concerns had been addressed; however, we identified some new issues during our recent visit. Following our previous inspection in May 2018, we issued two requirement notices for breaches of Regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Good governance.

Dr Guy O’Keefe’s Practice provides a private general practice service to patients at 26 Eaton Terrace in the borough of Westminster in London. Dr O’Keefe’s Practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the regulated activities of Treatment of disease, disorder or injury and Diagnostic and screening procedures.

Prior to our inspection, patients completed CQC comment cards telling us about their experiences of using the service. Fifteen people provided wholly positive feedback about the service. Dr O’Keeffe was described as caring, attentive and patients felt they were treated with respect.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The service had carried out a safety risk assessment of the premises and equipment; however, we found not all risks had not been fully assessed and mitigated.
  • The premises were clean and well maintained, we saw evidence of actions taken to prevent and control the spread of infections. However, no annual infection control audit had been carried out since our inspection in May 2018.
  • Not all emergency medicines were available as described in recognised guidance. There was no record kept of checks to make sure medicines were available, within their expiry dates, and in working order.
  • At this inspection we found medical equipment had been calibrated to ensure it was safe to use.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • We found evidence of quality improvement measures including clinical audits and there was evidence of action taken to change practice. Follow up audits demonstrated that learning and quality improvement had been achieved.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Services were provided to meet the needs of patients.
  • There was a system for recording and acting on incidents, adverse events and safety alerts. The provider shared safety alerts with staff effectively.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the need to obtain a paediatric pulse oximeter.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Inspection carried out on 11 May 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 11 May 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was not providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

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

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was not providing well-led 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.

Dr Guy O’Keefe’s Practice provides a private general practice service to patients at 26 Eaton Terrace in the borough of Westminster in London.

Prior to our inspection, patients completed CQC comment cards telling us about their experiences of using the service. Thirty-four people provided wholly positive feedback about the service. Dr O’Keeffe was described as caring, attentive and efficient.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The service had carried out a safety risk assessment of the premises and equipment; however, there was minimal evidence that risks were fully assessed and well-managed; a number of health and safety and premises checks had not been undertaken and equipment had not been calibrated.
  • The premises were clean and well maintained, however no infection control audits or infection control training had been completed.
  • Procedures for managing medical emergencies including access to emergency medicines and equipment were safe.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Services were provided to meet the needs of patients.
  • There was a system for recording and acting on incidents, adverse events and safety alerts. The provider shared safety alerts with staff effectively.
  • There was limited evidence of systems to support good governance and management.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.

We identified regulations that were not being met and 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.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Establish a system to provide appropriate support and signposting for patients with a caring responsibility

Inspection carried out on 27 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak with any people using this service as no one had an appointment during our visit. As a single handed doctor Dr O’Keeffe had arranged this so that he had time to discuss the service with us. We saw the patient feedback forms analysed in June 2012. These showed a high level of patient satisfaction.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)