The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Courtfield Private Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

73 Courtfield Gardens, London, SW5 0NL (020) 7373 3541

Provided and run by:
Courtfield Private Practice Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Courtfield Private Practice 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 Courtfield Private Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

23 May 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall (last inspection September 2018, 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 Courtfield Private Practice Limited on 23 May 2022 as part of our inspection programme.

Courtfield Private Practice consists of a group of private General Practitioners working from modern premises in South Kensington, London. In addition to routine family practice, the service has expertise in paediatrics as well as health screening for men and women.

Dr Tim Ladbrooke 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.

Our key findings were:

  • There was an open culture in which safety concerns raised by staff and people who used services were highly valued as integral to learning and improvement.

  • Clinical audits were carried out and all relevant staff were involved. Opportunities to participate in benchmarking, peer review and accreditation were proactively pursued.

  • People had comprehensive assessments of their needs, which included consideration of clinical needs, mental health, physical health and wellbeing.

  • Monitoring and reviewing activity enabled staff to understand risks and gave a clear, accurate and current picture of safety. For example, a December 2021 risk assessment regarding a bacterium called Legionella (which can proliferate in building water systems) identified that cold-water tanks required cleaning and disinfecting. We noted the six-month time scale for undertaking these works.

  • Safeguarding vulnerable adults, children and young people was given priority.

  • Leadership, practice management and governance arrangements drove the delivery of high-quality person-centred care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to monitor and act on Legionella risks.

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

19 September 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 19 September 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.

Courtfield Private Practice is an independent health service based in Kensington where GP services are carried out to private patients.

Our key findings were:

  • Systems were in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.
  • There were systems in place for clinical staff to be kept up to date with evidence based guidelines and practices.
  • Medicines were managed and monitored in a way that kept patients safe.
  • There was a programme of quality improvement including clinical audits.
  • There were systems to update external bodies such as GPs and consultants of care and treatment being provided.
  • All members of staff were up-to-date with training relevant to their role.
  • There were comprehensive risk assessments to mitigate current and future risks.
  • Policies and procedures to govern activity were in place and reviewed annually.
  • Emergency equipment and procedures kept patients and staff safe.
  • Systems were in place to protect personal information of patients.
  • There was a system for checking parental responsibility for adults attending with a child, but this did not include checking photographic identification.

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

Review the system for establishing parental responsibility of adults attending the service with children.

2 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service, sampled feedback forms from the last two months and annual collated survey results. People were satisfied with the care and treatment provided. They said they received good information to help them make decisions and were supported by staff. They were positive and complimentary about the practice and staff and told us they were treated with respect.

People who use the service were given appropriate information regarding their care or treatment. The practice website gave a range of information on services available.

Care was planned in a way to ensure people's safety. People had their needs assessed by a doctor before treatment was undertaken and doctors responded with appropriate care and treatment. One person told us, 'they are very thorough; they don't miss anything and they refer on if they need to'.

There were procedures in place to deal with medical emergencies. People were kept safe by clear policies, procedures and training on safeguarding adults and children.

Staff received appropriate professional development and we saw evidence of training, supervision and appraisal.