• Doctor
  • GP practice

Cassidy Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

651A Fulham Road, London, SW6 5PX (020) 7384 4850

Provided and run by:
AT Medics Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Cassidy Medical Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Cassidy Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

5 July 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Cassidy Medical Centre on 6 July 2022. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Requires improvement

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 20 February 2017 the practice was rated Good overall and for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Cassidy Medical Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection due to specific concerns relating to the parent provider. There were no specific concerns relating directly to Cassidy Medical Centre. We inspected and rated three key questions:

  • Safe
  • Effective
  • Well-Led.

We inspected the Responsive key question and this was not rated.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • What we found when we inspected
  • Information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • Information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as Good overall

We found that:

  • Patients with long term conditions and/or taking high risk medicines were not always monitored appropriately or in a timely manner. We saw evidence that overdue reviews had been completed only following the announcement of the inspection.
  • Rates of cervical and cancer screening, and childhood immunisations were below the expected level although these rates are comparable with other practices in the local area. We saw proof that the practice had been engaging in two-cycle audits that were ongoing in order to improve figures. The impact of this has not yet been seen however rates of bowel and breast cancer screening and childhood immunisations had been steadily increasing since 2018.
  • There were clear and effective systems in place to keep people safe and manage risk.
  • The practice was proactive in undertaking quality improvement measures across the service including audit, engagement and patient education.
  • There was adequate quality assurance and improvement measures in place.
  • We saw evidence of open and inclusive culture where staff were valued and demonstrated good levels of teamwork for the benefit of the patients.
  • There were appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure staff and patients were safe and well cared for.
  • There were regular practice meetings to discuss learning, significant events, improvements and communicate any changes.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:

  • Monitor systems’ efficacy to ensure timely and adequate monitoring and reviews of patients on high risk medicine and/or with long term conditions.
  • Provide adequate support, supervision and lines of communication for junior staff and new/trainee clinicians.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

16 June 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Cassidy Medical Centre on 16 June 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Consider ways to improve the practice uptake for cervical screening.

  • Continue to improve the identification of patients who are carers and the support offered to them by the practice.

  • Consider improving communication with patients who have a hearing impairment.

  • Advertise the translation services within the practice to inform patients this service is available to them.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice