The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Zafash 24 Hours Doctors

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

231B Old Brompton Road,, London, SW5 0EA (020) 7373 2219

Provided and run by:
Zafash Medical Services Ltd

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Zafash 24 Hours Doctors 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 Zafash 24 Hours Doctors, you can give feedback on this service.

26 October 2022

During a routine inspection

How we inspected this service

We carried out an announced inspection at Zafash 24 Hours Doctors on 26 October 2022. This was as part of our inspection programme; the service had previously been inspected but not rated.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

  • Is it safe?
  • Is it effective?
  • Is it caring?
  • Is it responsive to people’s needs?
  • Is it well-led?

These questions therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

The key questions at this inspection were rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? - Unable to rate

Are services caring? - Unable to rate

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

Our key findings were:

  • The service had good systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the service learned from them and improved their processes.
  • 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 people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • There was a focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

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

  • Continue to develop clinical audits as more patients are seen.
  • Look at ways to receive patient feedback in order to improve overall service and performance.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

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

4 September 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 4 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.

Zafash 24 Hour Doctors is an independent GP service working with adults and children over the age of seven who require private consultations, physical examination and prescription of medication. The service primarily provides a mobile service, but also offers a surgery and consultation space in Earls Court.

Mr Naseer Ahmed Khan 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:

  • Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. The registered manager was the lead member of staff for safeguarding and had undertaken adult and child safeguarding training.
  • The provider was aware of current evidence based guidance and they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out his role.
  • The provider was aware of their responsibility to respect people’s diversity and human rights.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • There was a complaints procedure in place and information on how to complain was readily available.
  • Governance arrangements were in place. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
  • The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The service 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 service had systems in place to collect and analyse feedback from patients.

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

  • Review the requirement for a chaperone policy.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

2 January 2014

During a routine inspection

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. A telephone consultation was undertaken before each visit and, where the doctor considered that the patient required care not provided by the service they were given information regarding local hospital or ambulance services. Consent forms were in place and we saw that these were signed to show agreement that appropriate information had been provided.

We saw from patient records that information was recorded regarding medical history, current medication and symptoms, along with diagnosis and treatment recommendations.

Although the provider had made efforts to contact people who used the service, we were unable to speak to anyone during this inspection. We looked at completed feedback forms. Comments included, "I was treated with respect," and, "All options discussed. I was able to make my choices without any pressure."

Effective measures were in place to reduce the risk of infection. We saw there were up to date policies and procedures, and there was evidence that measures were in place to ensure that infection control procedures were followed.

We saw evidence that detailed checks were in place for all staff recruited by the service, and that these were regularly updated.

We saw that arrangements were in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of services provided.