You are here

Concierge Medical Practice Good

Reports


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Concierge Medical Practice on 8 July 2021. 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 Concierge Medical Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 21/05/2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall with rated outstanding for providing responsive services.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Outstanding

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Concierge Medical Practice on 21 May 2019 as part of our current inspection programme. The practice had been inspected on 11 January 2018 under our previous methodology and no rating had been applied.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide independent GP services to individual patients in their locality. Thirteen patients provided feedback directly to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). All comments were extremely positive about the service experienced. Patients commented that doctors were friendly, professional and polite, and that nothing was too much trouble. They felt they were well treated and cared for and that doctors responded to their concerns quickly which gave them the reassurance they needed.

Our key findings were:

We found that:

  • The practice provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for recording, reporting and learning from significant events. The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents happened, the practice learned from them and reviewed their processes to ensure improvements were made.
  • There were clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices in place to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse and for identifying and mitigating risks of health and safety.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients said that they could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The practice reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines and best practice.
  • Patients told us that all staff treated them with kindness and respect and that they felt involved in discussions about their treatment options.
  • Doctors had the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Policies and procedures had been kept under regular review and updated accordingly. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support effective governance.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. There was a practice development plan that documented both long and short-term priorities for the service.
  • There was visible practice and managerial leadership with audit arrangements in place to monitor quality.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

  • There were no set limits to consultations so doctors were are able to make a full assessment of medical needs, particularly for those patients with complex, long-term conditions, co-morbidities and/or general age-related frailty.
  • All patients have a named doctor to oversee their care with buddy arrangements in place to cover absences.
  • We saw examples where doctors had exceeded expectations in treating patients with care and compassion which included for example, treating visiting relatives of patient members (who were non-members) and calling in to see patients if they suspected something was not as it should be with them.
  • In addition to home visits, patients had been visited at work, accompanied to hospital (to support both the patients and their families and act as their advocate), supported them in respite and nursing homes and at schools.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Inspection carried out on 11 January 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 11 January 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with

the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the practice was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide independent GP services to individual patients in their locality.

Six patients provided feedback directly to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). All comments were positive about the service experienced. Patients commented that they felt they were well treated and cared for; that they were treated with kindness and compassion and that doctors were friendly professional and courteous.  

Our key findings were:

·        

The practice had systems and processes to minimise risks to patient safety. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. Learning was shared with the team and outcomes had been actioned.

·      

There was a system for recording, actioning and tracking patient safety alerts. A

lerts had been reviewed and action taken where appropriate. All alerts were reviewed in clinical meetings.

·        

All appropriate recruitment checks had been carried out on staff prior to being employed by the practice.

·        

Feedback from patients about their care was consistently positive.

·       

The practice was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. This included appropriate arrangements for equipment and medicines that may be required to respond to a medical emergency.

·       

Information about services and how to complain was available to patients. The practice made improvements to the quality of care as a result of learning from complaints and concerns.

·       

There was a practice development plan that documented both their long and short-term priorities.

·     

The practice had visible clinical and managerial leadership with audit arrangements in place to monitor quality.