• Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: Plumley, Hassas, Rose, Helm, Earney & Andrews Also known as Student Medical Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Roehampton University, Froebel College, Old Court, Roehampton Lane, Roehampton, London, SW15 5PJ (020) 8392 3679

Provided and run by:
Rose, Helm, Earney & Andrews

All Inspections

24 November 2016 & 6 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Roberts, McKenzie, Plumley, Hassas, Kirkland, Allen, Rose & Helm (Student Medical Centre) on 24 November 2016. Due to unforeseen circumstances related to Care Quality Commission staffing we extended the inspection to a second visit on 6 January 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed; however, the business continuity plan did not contain emergency contact numbers for practice staff.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • 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, with the exception of translation services which were not advertised.
  • Patient survey results indicated that patients 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. However, responses to complaints did not contain details of external organisations to which complaints could be escalated.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Review and improve mechanisms for patients to provide feedback and take action in response to feedback from patients.

  • Take steps to ensure that information regarding translation services are easily accessible to patients.

  • Improve the identification of patients with caring responsibilities to be able to provide appropriate support and signposting

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice