The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Bupa Centre - Battle Bridge House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Battle Bridge House, 300 Gray's Inn Road, London, WC1X 8DU (020) 7656 3719

Provided and run by:
Bupa Occupational Health Limited

All Inspections

26 June 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection March 2018. This inspection was unrated)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bupa Centre – Battle Bridge House on 26 June 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

The service is registered with the CQC to provide a private GP service and mammography service.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Bupa Centre – Battle Bridge House provides a range of non-surgical interventions, for example health assessments, musculoskeletal and workplace health assessments which are not within CQCs scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The centre 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.

We received five completed CQC comment cards. All were positive about the service commenting on the friendly and professional service received.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the service learned from them and improved.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured 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.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.

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

28 March 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 23 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.

Prior to our inspection patients completed CQC comment cards telling us about their experiences of using the service. Nine people provided wholly positive feedback about the service.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the service learned from them and improved.
  • 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.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.

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

  • Review safeguarding training requirements in line with the services new safeguarding policy.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who were using the service. They told us they were happy with the service they were receiving. The following are examples of comments we received:

'It is a very good service. Very smooth coming here.'

'It is very good. Fast and thorough.'

'The staff are always polite.'

We also spoke with five members of staff and looked at records for people using the service.

We found that people using the service felt their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered. We also saw evidence that their needs were assessed and that their consent was sought prior to any procedure being undertaken.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found that people using the service were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff told us they felt supported and had good access to training.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.