You are here

Dr Claire Scudder Good Also known as The Chelsea Practice


Review carried out on 5 December 2019

During an annual regulatory review

We reviewed the information available to us about Dr Claire Scudder on 5 December 2019. We did not find evidence of significant changes to the quality of service being provided since the last inspection. As a result, we decided not to inspect the surgery at this time. We will continue to monitor this information about this service throughout the year and may inspect the surgery when we see evidence of potential changes.

Inspection carried out on 8 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Clair Scudder on 5 November 2015. The practice was rated requires improvement for safe, with the overall rating for the practice being good. The full comprehensive report can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Clair Scudder on our website at

We carried out this announced follow up comprehensive inspection on 8 August 2017. Overall the practice is now rated as good in all domains.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.

  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment. .
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice 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 practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Identify and support patients with caring responsibilities so their needs can be met.

  • The practice should continue to review their cervical smear performance with a view to improving uptake

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 5 November 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Claire Scudder on 5 November 2015. Overall the practice is rated as Good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • Staff were clear about reporting incidents, near misses and concerns and there was evidence that lessons learned were shared with staff.

  • Systems were in place to safely manage medicines but the process for ensuring that medicines were kept at the required temperatures was not sufficiently robust.

  • The practice had equipment available to deal with medical emergencies but there were deficiencies in the ancillary equipment for providing oxygen.

  • The practice worked in collaboration with other health and social care professionals to support patients’ needs and provided a multidisciplinary approach to their care and treatment.

  • The practice promoted good health and prevention and provided patients with suitable advice and guidance.

  • The practice had several ways of identifying patients who needed additional support, and was pro-active in offering this.

  • The practice provided a caring service. Patients indicated that staff were caring and treated them with dignity and respect. Patients were involved in decisions about their care.

  • The practice provided appropriate support for end of life care and patients and their carers received good emotional support.

  • The practice learned from patient experiences, concerns and complaints to improve the quality of care.

  • The practice had a clear, patient-centred vision and staff were clear about the vision and their responsibilities in relation to this.

  • There was an open culture and staff felt supported in their roles.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure the proper and safe management of medicines in relation to the process for ensuring that medicines were kept at the required temperatures; and the availability of all necessary equipment for dealing with medical emergencies.

In addition, the areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the infection control audit template to ensure clarity about the issue being audited and the expected standard to be achieved.

  • Display information about the practice’s vision in the patient waiting area.

  • Continue to pursue attempts to secure greater input from patient members in leading the patient participation group and in encouraging increased membership.  

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 6 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four patients during our visit, two of whom were members of the patient participation group (PPG). All patients were satisfied with the service they received. Two patients described the care as �outstanding� and one patient said �they don�t just treat the problem, they treat the person�. All patients stated that their GP gave them choices and information and that they always felt involved in their care. People's needs were assessed and their care was planned in a way to ensure their safety and welfare.

There was a procedure for dealing with medical emergencies and emergency equipment was available.

Patients were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were suitable systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received. We looked at people's comments on the NHS Choices website. We saw that all comments had been reviewed by the provider. The annual patient survey from 2012- 2013 was available on the practice website and this also included the minutes from the last PPG meeting.