The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Thurloe Street Private Practice

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

18 Thurloe Street, London, SW7 2SU (020) 7225 2424

Provided and run by:
Thurloe Street Private Practice

All Inspections

22 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at ‘The Surgery’ on 22 July 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 across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had online facilities to book appointments and request repeat prescriptions, although there was no website for NHS patients to access further information on the practice.
  • 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 reviewed feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on. The practice did not have a participation group (PPG) and were trying to recruit members to the group.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • Patients experiencing symptoms of urinary tract infection received a urine dipstick test prior to seeing a clinical member of staff.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should:

  • Ensure regular infection control audits are carried out.
  • Ensure NHS patients can access information about the service online.
  • Be proactive in seeking the views of patients through the patient participation group.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who used the service. People told us they were always able to see a GP when they wanted to and could make an appointment to see a specific doctor if they wanted. There were two GPs working at the practice so people received good continuity of care. Comments from people included "I'm very, very happy and wouldn't go anywhere else. It's excellent here" another person described the service as "first class".

People were involved in making decisions about their care. People told us they were given sufficient time with the GP to discuss their concerns and were referred to other services, if recommended by their GP. People understood the treatment required as the GP took time to answer their questions. The provider monitored the quality of the service by working with other relevant professionals and gathering evidence in order to meet the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators.

Care was planned and delivered in a way to ensure people's safety and welfare. People were seen and treated by qualified clinicians who had undergone the appropriate employment checks. There were out of hours doctor arrangements and people who were unable to come to the practice were visited in their homes. If staff were concerned about the welfare of a person who used the service, safeguarding policies and procedures were available. There were some arrangements in place to deal with medical emergencies.