Archived: The GP Surgery Wimbledon

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 9 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. We also planned the inspection to check on concerns raised which we had received.

The GP Surgery Ltd provides private medical and aesthetic services at The GP Surgery Wimbledon in the London Borough of Merton. Services are provided to both adults and children.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by a medical practitioner, including the prescribing of medicines. At The GP Surgery Ltd some aesthetic treatments that are provided by doctors are exempt from CQC regulation.

We received feedback from 25 people about the service, including comment cards, all of which were very positive about the service and indicated that patients were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were described as helpful, caring, thorough and professional.

Our key findings were:

• There were arrangements in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.
• Health and safety and premises risks were not always assessed and well-managed.
• There were safe systems for the management of medicines
• Staff knew how to deal with medical emergencies. Appropriate medicines and equipment were available.
• The premises were clean and hygienic.
• The service had safe systems for recording, acting on and improving when things went wrong.
• Assessments and treatments were carried out in line with relevant and current evidence based guidance and standards.
• There was evidence of some quality improvement measures.
• The systems for monitoring training for staff were not always effective.
• Staff treated patients with kindness, respect, dignity and professionalism.
• Opening hours reflected the needs of the population and patients were able to book appointments when they needed them.
• The service had a clear procedure for managing complaints. They took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.
• Leaders had the skills and capacity to deliver the service and provide high quality care.
• Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued. They were proud to work in the service.
• The provider was aware of and had systems to ensure compliance with the requirements of the duty of candour.
• The service asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.

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

• Review the management of health and safety of the premises including legionella testing and fire safety.
• Ensure that staff receive training in safeguarding adults, infection control, fire safety and information governance appropriate to their roles.
• Review the systems to ensure adequate and ongoing monitoring of staff training according to the staff training policy.
• Review the use of clinical audit to improve quality.
• Review the systems for verifying the identity of adults accompanying child patients.