You are here

Samedaydoctor London City Clinic Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Reports


Review carried out on 7 January 2022

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Samedaydoctor London City Clinic on 7 January 2022. 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 Samedaydoctor London City Clinic, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 26 May 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Previous overall rating, 15 May 2019: Good.

Previous rating for the key question Safe: Requires Improvement.

This service is again rated as Good

overall.

The key questions are rated as: -

Are services safe? – Good

The ratings carried forward from our previous inspection are: -

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We previously carried out a comprehensive inspection of Samedaydoctor London City Clinic on 15 May 2019, under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was conducted to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. We rated the service Good overall and in respect of the key questions Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. We rated the service as Requires Improvement in relation to the key question Safe. There were procedures in place for monitoring and managing risks. However: -

  • There was a lack of a systemic approach for ensuring patient safety alerts had been actioned.
  • The provider could not demonstrate care was provided in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm. For example: the adult and children safeguarding policies needed to be updated to reflect some of the new categories of abuse, the provider needed to evidence that staff had a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check at an appropriate level to their role, and Patient Group Directions (PGDs) needed to be current and up to date.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems for accountability to support good governance and management, but some of the arrangements, such as consultation reviews, were on an informal basis, so it was difficult for the provider to evidence any action taken or feedback given.

We served requirement notices in relation to Regulations 17 and 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and made some recommendations for improvement. The provider had produced a plan of actions to address these.

We carried out this focussed inspection to review the action taken by the service provider to meet the requirements of the regulations and to re-assess the rating for the key question Safe. We found the provider had taken appropriate action to address the issues noted at our inspection in May 2019 and have revised the rating for the key question Safe to Good.

The provider offers a range of private GP services, including face to face, video and telephone consultations, email exchange consultations, and testing. It offers referrals for x-rays and scans and to specialists for secondary care. It also provides services relating to sexual health and vaccinations, including provision of childhood immunisations.

The clinical lead for the service 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’ with legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

  • The provider had introduced an effective procedure for monitoring and actioning patient safety alerts.
  • Safeguarding policies had been revised. Evidence of appropriate DBS checks was maintained, and suitable risk assessments carried out.
  • Patient Group Directions (PGDs) relating to administering vaccines and medications were no longer used in the service. Where appropriate, Patient Specific Directions (PSDs) were used in accordance with relevant guidance.
  • There was an effective system for conducting consultation and notes reviews and for feedback from the review to be given to members of the clinical team.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP


Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Inspection carried out on 15/05/2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Samedaydoctor London City Clinic 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.

The Chief Medical Officer is the registered manager, although this is due to change in the near future. 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 18 completed CQC comment cards, all of which were positive and indicated that people were treated with kindness and respect. Comments included staff were caring, helpful and friendly; informative and supportive; and that the service efficient and accommodating.

Our key findings were:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. The way in which care was delivered was reviewed to ensure it was delivered according to best practice guidance and staff were well supported to update their knowledge through training.
  • Patients were offered appointments between 9am to 6pm, Monday to Friday, and 10am to 2pm on Saturday, at a time that was convenient to them.
  • There were effective procedures in place for monitoring and managing risk to people and staff safety.
  • There was a lack of a systemic approach for ensuring patient safety alerts had been actioned.
  • The service could not demonstrate that they provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm. For example: the safeguarding policies needed to be updated to reflect some of the new categories of abuse, the service needed to evidence that staff had received a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check at an appropriate level to their role, and patient group directions needed to be current and up to date.
  • Staff were supported with their personal development and received opportunities for supervision, training and mentoring appropriate to their work.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems for accountability to support good governance and management. However, some of the arrangements were on an informal basis, so it was difficult for the service to evidence any action taken or feedback given.
  • There was an overarching provider vision and strategy with evidence of good local leadership within the service.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.
  • Ensure specified information is available regarding each staff employed.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Update the safeguarding policies to reflect all the new categories of abuse.
  • Introduce a systematic approach to confirm that patient safety alerts are actioned.
  • Provide written evidence that new staff have completed an induction.
  • Formalise the system for sharing information with the local staff team.
  • Only supply unlicensed medicines against valid special clinical needs of an individual patient where there is no suitable licensed medicine available.
  • Update PGDs in a timely manner to reflect the service’s own guidance and in line with NICE guidance.

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

Inspection carried out on 25 April 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 25 April 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 practice was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The Sameday doctor London City Clinic provides a private general practice to those working within central London, sexual health services and childhood immunisations.

The company director of Sameday Doctor 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.

Forty five people provided positive feedback about the service.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the service had a system to learn from them and improve.
  • 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

  • Implement infection prevention and control audit processes.
  • Introduce systems for maintaining a log of safety alerts.
  • Improve the system for documentation retention for staff induction.