You are here

Archived: AlldayDr Group Ltd Good Also known as Head Office

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 7 May 2021

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We rated this service as Good overall. (Previous inspection February 2020 – Requires improvement)

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 previously inspected AlldayDr Group Limited on 12 February 2020. The full comprehensive report on 12 February 2020 can be found by selecting the “all services” link for AlldayDr on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At our previous inspecton on 12 February 2020 we found the service to be requires improvement under the key lines of enquiry for the safe and well led domains. We rated the service as requires improvement overall. We rated the safe domain as requires improvement because on the day of the inspection risk management, quality assurance and prescribing were not failsafe. We rated the well led domain as requires improvement because the provider was not aware of the areas where patient safety may be compromised or other potential risks.

At this inspection on 7 May 2021 we found the service had addressed the issues identified at the last inspection. We found:

  • All areas of risk had been removed from the service. For example, prescribed medicines could no longer be purchased directly from the website and questionnaires were no longer used to make judgments.
  • The service had improved systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. Where they had happened, we saw evidence that the service learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The service had reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. We saw that there were systems in place to ensure care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients could access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement specifically within the management and operational levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Maintain consistent personnel information for each member of staff including references and appropriate DBS certification/ID numbers

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at AlldayDr on 12 February 2020 as part of our inspection programme. This was their first inspection.

AlldayDr is an online healthcare provider that offers a consultation service with a GP through a Smart phone app and online web portal. Patients can register via the online web portal or smart phone app and patients are able to pay either a one-off fee or subscribe to the service.

We rated the service as requires improvement overall. We rated the safe domain as requires improvement because on the day of the inspection risk management, quality assurance and prescribing were not failsafe. We rated the well led domain as requires improvement because on the day of the inspection the provider was not aware of the areas where patient safety may be compromised or other potential risks.

At this inspection we found:

  • Not all systems to manage the risks associated with digital patient care and treatment were failsafe. For example, at the time of the inspection the provider did not have an effective system in place to receive and act on medicines and safety alerts, such as those issued by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It usually ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines. However, we did see some examples where this was not the case. For example, contemporaneous notes were not written in accordance with current guidelines.
  • Prescribing was carried out by the GP reviewing patients. However, this was not always in accordance with prescribing requirements.
  • We saw items that appeared to be for sale on the service website that on further review were not purchasable. This was misleading to people reviewing the website. When this was pointed out to the provider the items were immediately removed from the website.
  • Consent to share information with a patient’s NHS GP was obtained at the point of sign up. However, no information had ever been shared following any of the consultations.
  • Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients could access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • Staff met regularly to discuss consultations, incidents, and any learning that could be applied or improvements that could be made.
  • There was no clinical peer review of GP consultations to ensure they were effective and followed appropriate guidelines. For example, although a clinical care audit tool was in place, the audit had been undertaken by a non-clinical manager.
  • All staff had received appropriate training for their role.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are as follows:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are as follows:

  • More clarity was required to ensure all clinicians (once the service is scaled) understood the service expectations and importance of sharing information.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care.