The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Breakspear Medical Group

Hertfordshire House, Wood Lane, Paradise Industrial Estate, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP2 4FD (01442) 261333

Provided and run by:
Breakspear Medical Group Limited

All Inspections

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 providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was 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 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.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner, including the prescribing of medicines for the purposes of allergy treatment and immunisations.

The service manager 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.

41 people provided feedback about the service using CQC comment cards ahead of our inspection. All comments were positive and 39 people noted specific, detailed information about their experiences. Some patients noted they had used the service for over nine years and said their treatment had demonstrably improved their quality of life. Some cards were written by the parents of children, who said they felt all the staff had treated their child appropriately with respect. All 41 comment cards referred to the kindness of staff or the dignity with which they were treated.

Our key findings were:

  • Care and treatment was delivered by a well-trained team that maintained up to date knowledge of the latest national and international guidance.
  • The ethos of the service was demonstrably patient-centred with effective clinical governance processes in place.
  • Treatment was evidence-based and a dedicated researcher worked with clinicians to ensure patients had access to outcomes from the latest research to guide safe and effective treatment.
  • Staff placed considerable value on engagement with patients and feedback was consistently positive, with a significant track record of care that had positively impacted patient’s lives.
  • Staff demonstrated passion, motivation and a drive for innovation in meeting individual needs
  • The clinical team used the outcomes of international research and internal resources to meet the needs of patients who had exhausted treatment options elsewhere.

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

  • Review infection control audit processes to ensure areas of substandard performance are promptly addressed.
  • Review fire risk assessments in the building and review day-to-day environment management processes to ensure good fire safety standards.
  • Only supply unlicensed medicines against valid special clinical needs of an individual patient where there is no suitable licensed medicine available.

05 April 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 05 April 2016 to ask the Breakspear Medical Group 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 providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was 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 providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

Breakspear Medical Group provides a private medical service to adults and children in a day patient unit. The majority of the providers work involves the treatment of allergies including child immunisations and environmental illnesses.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the following regulated activities: diagnoses, and screening, and treatment of disease disorder or injury. All doctors at the service have state registered qualifications, and are registered with the GMC.

The service team consists of over 50 staff members including; qualified doctors, nurses, accountants, laboratory technicians, nutritional therapists, a psychological counsellor, a patient liaison team management, quality management, receptionists and administrative team members.

The service manager 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

The service is open and offers appointments Monday to Saturdays from 9am to 5pm excluding public bank holidays. Consultations with physicians are conducted Monday to Friday and allergy treatments and immunisations are performed Monday to Saturday. We were told by the registered manager that 50%of their patients came from other patients’ recommendations. Referrals were also received from GPs and/or other specialists. People also contacted the service directly to access advice and consultations.

We reviewed comment cards where patients and members of the public had shared their views and experiences of the service. There were 11 completed CQC comment cards received which were all positive regarding the care and treatment provided by the service.

Our key findings were:

  • There was an open, transparent and effective system to report and record safety events.
  • Risk management was well administered and supervised for patients and staff.
  • Patients’ needs were established and monitored for their patient specific treatment.
  • We saw all patients’ understood and had agreed to their treatment before it was provided.
  • Staff had been trained with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the specialist care and treatment.
  • Patients told us they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were fully involved in their care and all decisions about their treatment.
  • There was easy to understand information about the service including how to complain. Patients told us they found communication with the service provider easy to understand.
  • This was available in the various languages necessary to enable patients to understand the treatment and care.
  • The services had adequate facilities and were well equipped to treat and meet their patient’s specific needs.

There was a clear leadership structure and staff told us they felt supported by management and the lead clinician.

23 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We found that patients and/or their relatives were involved in their treatment plan and were given an opportunity to ask uestions about any concerns they may have had. A relative we spoke with told us, “the service was absolutely amazing” and “staff were absolutely amazing, they were so kind and helpful”. We saw evidence that a consultation was done prior to any treatment taking place to ensure that the practice could meet patient’s needs.

The practice had a safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children from abuse policy and procedure which was accessible to staff via the practice’s computerised system.

There were sufficient numbers of staff with the right competencies, qualifications and skills to meet the needs of the patients who used the service. Records were stored in a secure, accessible way that allowed them to be located quickly.

18 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with eight people who use the service and they were all extremely positive about the treatment and care they received. People told us they found that the nursing staff, ‘really do care’ and that their treatments were ‘very clearly explained’. People told us that the patient liaison service was ‘excellent’ and that they felt very well supported by staff who were very knowledgeable about their individual conditions. One person told us that ‘this place has saved my life’ and another person told us, ‘nothing is too much trouble for the staff’

We found that people had consented to their treatment which they fully understood, as the staff had spent time explaining the processes to them. People received safe and appropriate care and treatment as the provider assessed their individual needs, took account of recent research and guidance and reflected people’s needs, values and diversity.

We found that people who had used the service were protected from the risk of exposure to a healthcare associated infection as the provider maintained the appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene. We noted that there were robust systems in place to ensure complaints were recorded, investigated and feedback giving where necessary. The provider had taken reasonable steps to ensure they employed staff with the appropriate skills, experience and qualifications. We noted that the provider had systems in place for the management of medicines.

15 July 2011

During a routine inspection

During our visit to the service on 27 May 2011, we spoke with a person who was receiving treatment at the service. They said that they had been fully involved in planning their treatment and had been provided with all the information they needed. They said that the nurses providing the care gave them individual attention and support and that all the nursing staff were very professional and none had any problems communicating with the people receiving treatment. When we asked them, they said that they had no concerns about the service but would feel confident in voicing a concern if they had one. They also said the staff always asked them their views on how the service was run.