You are here

Dr Kelly & Associates - London Wall Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 14 October 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This service is rated as Good overall.

The service was previously inspected in May 2019 and was rated Good overall. They were rated as Good in Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. However, it was rated as Requires Improvement in Safe.

The key question reviewed in this inspection Is now rated as follows:

Are services Safe? – Good

We carried out this announced focused inspection on 14 October 2020 to follow up on breaches we had identified at the last inspection. We had asked the provider to make improvements regarding:

  • The provider could not confirm that staff who carried out chaperone duties had enhanced DBS checks completed.
  • Full recruitment information was not available to demonstrate that safe recruitment practices had been carried out.
  • Prescriptions for controlled drugs were not securely monitored.

We checked these areas as part of this focused inspection and found they had been resolved.

We found that:

  • The provider had reviewed their procedure to ensure that all staff who have patient facing roles, which includes chaperones, were now required to have an Enhanced DBS check.
  • We saw evidence to confirm all the appropriate recruitment information for all their current staff was now kept on site
  • The practice manager drafted a new policy and set up a log for monitoring the use of controlled drugs prescriptions

There were a number of other issues from the previous report that we had said the provider should address. These were:

  • Review the service quality improvement programme with a view to establishing an effective clinical audit process to review and improve patient outcomes.
  • Review the process for recording and maintaining information related to Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks carried out to confirm that appropriate DBS checks have been completed.
  • Consider reviewing the performance of clinical staff to include a review of consultations, prescribing and referral decisions.

The provider reported that these had been addressed and provided evidence to support this. However, in the absence of an on-site inspection CQC were unable to review all actions. These matters do not affect the rating.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP


Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Inspection carried out on 16/05/2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Location Dr Kelly & Associates – London Wall as part of our inspection programme. The inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 so that an overall rating could be given.

Dr Kelly & Associates - London Wall is part of Doctorcall Ltd. It provides private primary healthcare appointments to adults over 18 years of age and has arrangements in place for secondary referral to diagnostic and specialist services as appropriate.

The practice manager is the Registered Manager for the location. 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.

Six patients had completed Care Quality Commission comment cards. All comments received were positive and examples of these included that they received clear explanations about their treatment and any tests. Patients said that they were satisfied with the service and advice they received.

Our key findings were:

  • Systems were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse.
  • When mistakes occurred, lessons were learned and action was taken to minimise the potential for reoccurrence. Staff understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence-based guidance.
  • Information to confirm that non-clinical staff who carried out chaperone duties had enhanced Disclosure (DBS) checks was not available.
  • The service could not demonstrate that all staff files contained the required evidence to confirm that safe recruitment practices were followed at all times.
  • Risk assessments had not been completed for recommended emergency medicines not held at the service.
  • Systems for the safe management of controlled drugs prescriptions were not in place.
  • Staff were qualified and had the skills, experience and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patient feedback indicated that patients were very satisfied with the service.
  • There was clear leadership and staff felt supported and the service team worked well together.
  • There was a clear vision to provide a high quality, personalised service.

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

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way for service users.
  • Ensure specific information is available for each person employed.

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

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the service quality improvement programme with a view to establishing an effective clinical audit process to review and improve patient outcomes.
  • Review the process for recording and maintaining information related to Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks carried out to confirm that appropriate DBS checks have been completed.
  • Consider reviewing the performance of clinical staff to include a review of consultations, prescribing and referral decisions.

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

Inspection carried out on 12 April 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 12 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 service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Dr Kelly & Associates - London Wall is part of Doctorcall Ltd. It provides private primary healthcare appointments to adults over 18 years of age and has arrangements in place for secondary referral to diagnostic and specialist services as appropriate.

The practice manager is the Registered Manager for the location. 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:

  • Systems were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse.
  • When mistakes occurred lessons were learned and action was taken to minimise the potential for reoccurrence. Staff understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance.
  • Staff were qualified and had the skills, experience and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patient feedback indicated that patients were very satisfied with the service.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • There was clear leadership and staff felt supported. The service team worked well together.
  • There was a clear vision to provide a high quality, personalised service.
  • The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service provision.

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

  • Review the service quality improvement programme with a view to establishing an effective clinical audit process to review and improve patient outcomes.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice