The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr King Stott and Pankhurst Also known as Emperors Gate Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Surgery, 1st Floor, 49 Emperor's Gate, London, SW7 4HJ (020) 7244 5670

Provided and run by:
Emperor's Gate Surgery

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr King Stott and Pankhurst 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 Dr King Stott and Pankhurst, you can give feedback on this service.

16 October 2023

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr King Stott and Pankhurst

on 16 October 2023. Overall, the practice is rated as Good.

Safe - Good

Effective – Good

Caring – Good

Responsive – Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 30 September 2015, the practice was rated good overall and good for all key questions.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr King Stott and Pankhurst on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

We carried out this inspection in line with our inspection priorities and covered all key areas.

How we carried out the inspection/review

This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing.
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system (this was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements).
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider.
  • Requesting evidence from the provider.
  • A short site visit.

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Patients could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

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

  • Continue to monitor and encourage parents/guardians to bring children for their childhood immunisations and encourage patients to attend for their appointments for the national cervical screening programme.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

30 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr King Stott and Pankhurst (Emperor’s Gate Surgery) on 30 September 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 and monitored, appropriately. However, there were no consistent records to demonstrate that learning points from significant events were documented and shared with staff.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed including management of medicines, infection control and health and safety procedures.
  • 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 staff were helpful, caring, professional, and friendly and that they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • Patients said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available the same day following telephone triage consultation assessment with the duty doctor.
  • 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.

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

The provider should;

  • Ensure that a legionella risk assessment is undertaken.
  • Ensure that learning from all significant events is clearly documented and shared with practice staff.
  • Ensure all staff have received up to date training in safeguarding vulnerable adults.
  • Ensure that sharps containing cytostatic or cytotoxic medicines are disposed of in line with national guidance.
  • Ensure there is a system in place for monitoring distribution of prescription pads.
  • Ensure training records include evidence that staff have completed online e-learning training modules.
  • Ensure that there is an emergency alarm available in the patient toilet.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

14 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Dr King Stott and Pankhurst is also known as Emperors Gate Surgery. It is a teaching GP practice that provides GP primary care services to people living in the south of the borough of Kensington and Chelsea. It currently has just over 5000 patients registered. There are three partners at the practice who have up to four registrars working with them at any one time. They are registered to provide diagnostic and screening procedures, family planning, maternity and midwifery services, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

All patients we spoke with were very complimentary about the service. There was a patient participation group (PPG) that met four times a year. We saw changes were made as a result of feedback.

The practice was responsive to patients needs. They worked well with other services to keep patients in the community and prevent hospital admissions. They had access to specialist advice such as psychiatrists and physiotherapists and met regularly with district nurses, health visitors and the palliative care teams. An Age UK support worker attended the practice to provide support and act as an advocate for older patients.

The practice was providing effective care. They used a range of resources to provide evidence based assessments and treatment, such as National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and clinical knowledge summaries (CKS) which provides information about best practice.

The practice was caring, however some improvements were needed. CQC feedback cards completed were extremely positive about the practice. Although most patients were happy with the service they received some patients had expressed concerns about lack of appointments outside working hours.

There were arrangements in place to ensure patients were safe, however some improvements were needed. Where potential risks were identified, risk management plans were drafted with clear actions to be taken to minimise or alleviate the risk. However, we found the practice did not have arrangements in place to risk assess non-clinical staff for whom they did not carry out criminal record checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). Further, some staff had not attended adult safeguarding training and as such could not clearly identify signs of abuse.

The practice was well led, however some improvements were needed. Three partners and a practice manager formed the leadership team. All had clear areas of responsibility. However, there were no formal processes in place to gather feedback from staff.