We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 24 May 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

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 service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. For example, occupational health assessments do not fall within the regulated activities for which the location is registered with CQC.

The primary care medical director is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

As part of this inspection we asked for CQC comment cards to be completed. We received 48 completed CQC comment cards. All the completed cards indicated that patients were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were described as friendly, caring and professional. Some patients commented on how using the service had helped them with their individual care needs. In addition, comment cards described the environment as pleasant, clean and tidy. We also spoke with five patients during the inspection. All five patients were happy with the care and service they received.

Our key findings were:

• There was a transparent approach to safety with demonstrably effective systems in place for reporting and recording incidents.
• The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• All health assessment rooms were well organised and equipped, with good light and ventilation.
• There were systems in place to check all equipment had been serviced regularly.
• Clinicians regularly assessed patients according to appropriate guidance and standards such as those issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
• Staff maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients.
• Staff were up to date with current guidelines and were led by a proactive management team.
• Risks to patients were well managed. For example, there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.
• Staff were kind, caring, competent and put patients at their ease.
• Patients were provided with information about their health and with advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
• The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

Professor Steve Field

CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP Chief Inspector of General Practice