The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Dr Adrian Whiteson OBE

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Suite 2 Welbeck Mansions, 35a Welbeck Street, London, W1G 8EZ (020) 7935 3351

Provided and run by:
Adrian Leon Whiteson OBE

All Inspections

10 April 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Adrian Whiteson OBE on 10 April 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

Dr Adrian Whiteson OBE is an independent clinic in central London, which provides a person-centred healthcare service. This is a single-handed private doctor service to adults only, which mostly provides annual health checks, follow-ups, diagnosis and referrals to other consultants. The service is renting space in shared premises.

The doctor 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.

Two patients we spoke with on the telephone were positive about the care and treatment offered by the service. Patients said they were satisfied with the standard of care received and thought the doctor was approachable, committed and caring. As part of our inspection, we also asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. All of the 22 comment cards we received were positive about the care received.

Our key findings were:

  • The provider had specialised in offering the individualised annual health checks, which accounted for 90% of their workload.
  • Assessments of the patients’ potential conditions were thorough and followed national guidance.
  • The principal doctor was not responsible for managing patients with long-term conditions and they were referred to their NHS GP or other private consultants with their consent.
  • Consent procedures were in place and these were in line with legal requirements.
  • There was an infection prevention and control policy and procedures were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
  • Systems were in place to protect personal information about patients.
  • Safety systems and processes were in place to keep patients safe.
  • Appointments were available on a pre-bookable basis. The service provided only face to face consultations.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • The service had gathered feedback from the patients.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Implement a monitoring system to assure regular oversight of water temperature checks carried out by the building’s management.

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

1 February 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 1 February 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.

Background

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 meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Dr Adrian Whiteson OBE is an independent clinic in the central London, which provides a person-centred healthcare service. This is a single-handed private doctor service to adults only, which mostly provides annual health checks, follow-ups, diagnosis and referrals to other consultants. The service is renting a space in shared premises. The doctor is the registered provider with the Care Quality Commission and has legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There are two secretaries working in the service who job share.

Two patients we spoke with on the telephone were positive about the care and treatment offered by the service. Patients said they were satisfied with the standard of care received and thought the doctor was approachable, committed and caring. As part of our inspection, we also asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. All of the 20 comment cards we received were positive about the care received.

Our key findings were:

  • The provider had specialised in offering the individualised annual health checks, which accounted 90% of their workload.
  • Assessments of patient’s potential conditions were thorough and followed national guidance.
  • The principal doctor was not responsible for managing the patients with long-term conditions and they were referred to their NHS GP or other private consultants with their consent.
  • Consent procedures were in place and these were in line with legal requirements.
  • Systems were in place to protect personal information about patients.
  • Safety systems and processes were in place to keep patients safe.
  • Appointments were available on a pre-bookable basis. The service provided only face to face consultations.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • The service had gathered feedback from the patients.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. A complaints procedure was in place. However, the provider had never received a formal complaint.

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

  • Consider how to improve access to patients with hearing difficulties.
  • Review systems to verify a patient’s identity on registering with the service.

25 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak with people who used the service because as a single-handed doctor Dr Whiteson had no appointments booked during our visit so that he was free for the inspection. We saw feedback information which was collected routinely and was positive about the service provided. The feedback and letters of thanks we saw included the comments 'I feel reassured' and that Dr Whiteson gave a 'detailed explanation'. We also saw peer comments such as 'patients speak highly' of Dr Whiteson and he was an 'exemplary physician'.

People were cared for in a safe environment by staff who had received appropriate training and appraisal. There were procedures in place to deal with emergencies. The practice had systems to ensure that people were protected from the risk of infection.

There was a complaints procedure available and the practice had received no complaints in the last 12 months.

7 February 2011

During a routine inspection

For this location it was not practicable to undertake a visit when patients were on site. Dr Whiteson is a single-handed doctor and sees very few private patients. The visit was announced to ensure that we could speak to Dr Whiteson and not interrupt his appointment schedule and thus disrupt patient care. We saw evidence that people were very satisfied with the service but were unable to speak to any patients on this occasion.