The Medical Chambers Kensington

Updated 16 June 2023

The Medical Chambers Kensington is operated by The Medical Chambers Kensington Limited and was founded in 2008. It is an outpatient centre providing a range of consultant led services. The services offered include Dentistry, ENT, physiotherapy, dermatology, GP, ophthalmology, neurology, prenatal tests, mental health, endocrinology, allergy, ultrasound, paediatrics and gynaecology. The service has a number of consulting rooms, CBT suite, and a dentistry suite. The service caters to private patients in the West London area, with an additional interest in providing access to services for French speaking patients.

The provider has had a registered manager in post since 2008. This is the service’s first inspection under the updated CQC methodology since their registration with CQC. The last report was published in January 2014 and did not identify any concerns.

Updated 16 June 2023

We had not previously rated this location. We rated it as good because:

• Staff received and kept up to date with their mandatory training. The mandatory training was comprehensive and met the needs of patients and the service.
• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.
• The service controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection.
• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.
• Staff gave patients enough refreshments to meet their needs. The service made adjustments for patients’ religious, cultural and other needs.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development.
• Healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.
• Patients we spoke with were positive about the treatment they received from clinical staff.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
• It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff.
• Staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.

However:

• The service did not have an arrangement or dedicated process for identifying, recording and managing all clinical or operational risks.
• At the time of inspection the service did not have a process for version control of policies and procedures, and we found versions of policies that were out of date with no plan for review.
• We did not see sufficient use of clinical risk assessments for outpatients other than dentistry.
• Resuscitation equipment for patients was stored in an unsecure closet next to the reception desk, and the bag itself was not securely locked.
• It was not clear where incident investigations were reported or where actions from incidents investigations were shared with staff.
• While minutes for operational meetings included a section for actions to be completed, minutes did not detail what actions were, when they should be completed by, or follow up of actions from previous meetings.
• Although patient consent forms recorded the consent of the patient, some consent forms used by the service did not include information on the risks related to procedures, alternatives to treatment, and risks related to the treatment not being carried out.
• The provider did not have a process in place to access interpreting services to aide in translation if needed.
• The service had waiting facilities to meet the needs of patients’ families, however there was no specific paediatric waiting area or facilities for children or young patients.

Updated 16 June 2023

Services for children and young people are a small proportion of the clinic’s activity. The main core service was outpatients which included appointments children and young people. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the outpatient section.

We had not previously rated this service. We rated it as good because:

• Staff received and kept up to date with their mandatory training. The mandatory training was comprehensive and met the needs of patients and the service.
• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.
• The service controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection.
• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.
• Staff gave patients enough refreshments to meet their needs. The service made adjustments for patients’ religious, cultural and other needs.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development.
• Healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.
• Patients we spoke with were positive about the treatment they received from clinical staff.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
• It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff.
• Staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.

However:

• The service had did not have an arrangement or dedicated process for identifying, recording and managing all clinical or operational risks.
• At the time of inspection the service did not have a process for version control of policies and procedures, and we found versions of policies that were out of date with no plan for review.
• We did not see sufficient use of clinical risk assessments for outpatients, including for children and young people, other than dentistry.
• Resuscitation equipment for patients was stored in an unsecure closet next to the reception desk, and the bag itself was not securely locked.
• It was not clear where incident investigations were reported or where actions from incidents investigations were shared with staff.
• While minutes for operational meetings included a section for actions to be completed, minutes did not detail what actions were, when they should be completed by, or follow up of actions from previous meetings.
• We viewed examples of the consent forms on inspection. Although consent forms recorded the written consent of the patient, consent forms and processes did not demonstrate that patients received sufficient information to make informed decisions in line with national guidance.
• The service had waiting facilities to meet the needs of patients’ families, however there was no specific paediatric waiting area or facilities for children or young people.

Updated 16 June 2023

We had not previously rated this location. We rated it as good because:

• Staff received and kept up to date with their mandatory training. The mandatory training was comprehensive and met the needs of patients and the service.
• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.
• The service controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection.
• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.
• Staff gave patients enough refreshments to meet their needs. The service made adjustments for patients’ religious, cultural and other needs.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development.
• Healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.
• Patients we spoke with were positive about the treatment they received from clinical staff.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
• It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff.
• Staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.

However:

• The service did not have an arrangement or dedicated process for identifying, recording and managing all clinical or operational risks.
• At the time of inspection the service did not have a process for version control of policies and procedures, and we found versions of policies that were out of date with no plan for review.
• We did not see sufficient use of clinical risk assessments for outpatients other than dentistry.
• Resuscitation equipment for patients was stored in an unsecure closet next to the reception desk, and the bag itself was not securely locked.
• It was not clear where incident investigations were reported or where actions from incidents investigations were shared with staff.
• While minutes for operational meetings included a section for actions to be completed, minutes did not detail what actions were, when they should be completed by, or follow up of actions from previous meetings.
• We viewed examples of the consent forms on inspection. Although consent forms recorded the written consent of the patient, consent forms and processes did not demonstrate that patients received sufficient information to make informed decisions in line with national guidance.
• The provider did not have a process in place to access interpreting services to aide in translation if needed.
• The service had waiting facilities to meet the needs of patients’ families, however there was no specific paediatric waiting area or facilities for young patients.