You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 8 May 2018

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 13 March 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.

Doctorcall London offers a 24 hour visiting doctor service within London and primary care appointments with a doctor at its clinic with onward referral to diagnostic and specialist services as appropriate. These services treat children and adults.

The service has a designated 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.

Our key findings were:

  • Systems were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse.
  • When mistakes occurred lessons were learned and action was taken to minimise the potential for reoccurrence. Staff understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance.
  • Staff were qualified and had the skills, experience and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patient feedback indicated that patients were very satisfied with the service.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • There was clear leadership and staff felt supported. The service team worked well together.
  • There was a clear vision to provide a high quality, personalised service.
  • The service had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service provision.

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

  • Review arrangements to ensure that equipment and medicines held by doctors who are visiting patients are checked and calibrated as necessary.
  • Review its procedures to check the identity of children and accompanying adults attending the clinic.
  • Review its quality improvement programme and, for example, embed clinical audit more systematically in its monitoring of performance.
Inspection areas

Safe

Updated 8 May 2018

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

The service had systems in place to assess and manage risks including safeguarding patients from the risk of abuse; learning from incidents and the safe management and dispensing of medicines. The practice was equipped to respond to medical emergencies.

Effective

Updated 8 May 2018

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

Doctors were up to date with current guidelines and considered these when delivering patient care. The service had systems in place to ensure that staff had the skills, knowledge and ongoing professional development to deliver a clinically effective service. The medical director audited the quality of their medical record keeping and carried out other clinical quality improvement work including occasional clinical audit.

Caring

Updated 8 May 2018

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

The service treated patients courteously and with respect. The service involved patients fully in decisions about their care and provided all information, including costs prior to the start of treatment. Screens were provided in consulting rooms to maintain patients’ privacy and dignity. Patients gave very positive feedback about the service and the staff.

Responsive

Updated 8 May 2018

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

The service was responsive to patient needs with home and hotel based consultations available 24 hours a day. Patients were usually able to access appointments at the clinic the same or next day. The service had a complaints policy in place and information about how to make a complaint was available for patients.

Well-led

Updated 8 May 2018

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

There was a clear leadership structure, vision and strategy for the service. The service had a comprehensive range of policies and procedures in place to identify and manage risks and to support good governance. The service supported staff members to develop in their role and there was a focus on service development and improvement.