Archived: Bowling Clinic

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 3 May 2018 to ask the practice the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this practice was not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this practice was not providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

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

Are services responsive?

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

Are services well-led?

We found that this practice was not 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 practice was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Bowling Clinic is an independent medical practice located in King’s Cross in the London Borough of Camden. It is run by a single-handed doctor and employs no staff. It is located in a single consultation room inside a beauty salon. The practice offers services for adults and children. It primarily serves the Chinese and South Asian communities and the doctor is able to speak several of the languages commonly spoken among the patient population.

We received CQC patient comment cards and spoke to patients at the practice. In total seven people provided feedback about the practice. All of the comments were positive about the service received. Patients said that the doctor was very kind and caring and always listened to their concerns, they also mentioned that although the clinic was small it was always clean and tidy.

Our key findings were:

• There were limited arrangements in place to keep patients safe. The practice was not able to demonstrate that it was providing safe services in relation to responding to medical emergencies, safeguarding, infection prevention and control, electrical testing, instrument calibration, training and policies.
• The doctor had some awareness of relevant and current evidence based guidance. However, the guidance was not available for use at the premises.
• There were limited governance arrangements in place. Not all necessary policies and procedures were held by the practice.
• As the practice was run by a single doctor, with no staff, no chaperones were available for patients who may want one to be present during consultations, though patients were aware they could bring friends or family with them for that purpose.
• Information about how to complain was available. The practice had not received any complaints in the last 12 months.
• There was evidence of quality improvement activity. The practice had carried out a single cycle audit of cholesterol levels amongst the Chinese patient population. It had also undertaken a clinical case review of the treatment of a patient with eczema.
• Patient feedback was positive about access to the practice, the quality of care received and the kind patient nature of the doctor.
• There were systems and processes in place for reporting and recording significant events.

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

• Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
• Introduce effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

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

• Review infection prevention and control systems and processes to ensure audits are undertaken on a regular basis.
• Review the management of clinical waste.
• Review how safety alerts can be made available in the practice.

After our inspection the doctor told us that he had ceased to provide any regulated activities, and had made an application to CQC to de-register the practice.