We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 8 February 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 practice was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Leadale Medical Practice is a private practice offering general medical services to approximately 1,000 adults and children. Services include face-to-face consultations, examinations, wound management and management of long-term conditions. The practice is based in Stamford Hill, North London has a staff team comprised of one doctor and one receptionist/administrator.

Eighty three people provided feedback about the service by completing comments cards. The feedback was positive about the practice, its staff and the care and treatment received.

Our key findings were:

• The practice had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen.
• The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. Clinical staff ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
• Clinical staff were qualified and had the skills, experience and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
• The practice was actively engaged in activities to monitor and improve quality and outcomes.

• All 83 of the CQC comment cards we received confirmed that staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

• There was a proactive approach to understanding the needs of the local community and towards delivering care in a way that met these needs and promoted equality.
• The culture of the service encouraged candour, openness and honesty.
• People could access appointments and services in a way and at a time that suited them.
• We saw examples of compassionate, inclusive and effective leadership.
• Practice management and governance arrangements facilitated the delivery of safe and high quality clinical care.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Review systems to ensure that upon assembly, sharps bins are labelled, signed, dated and locked.

• Ensure that the service’s Sharps Injuries Policy is displayed in the treatment room.

• Introduce a cleaning schedule for the service’s ultrasound machine.

• Implement a protocol for date checking and stock control of dispensary medication.

• Consider benchmarking its clinical activity against similar services.

• In accordance with its latest Legionella risk assessment, undertake periodic water temperature monitoring and water sample analysis (Legionella is a term for particular bacteria which can contaminate water systems in buildings).

At the time of our inspection we were able to speak with the provider of the service and the only member of staff who worked there. We were also able to speak with seven people who were using the service on the day of our visit.

Most of the people we spoke with had used the practice for some years. They all told us they were happy with the service provided. One person said, “he’s a top doctor. He’s exceptional at diagnosing and treating.” Another person told us, “I find the doctor comforting and reassuring, he always checks if I am ok while he examines me.”

Records were kept confidential and people who used the service said they had never seen another patient’s records.

The provider obtained feedback from people who used the service by asking them to use the suggestion box in the waiting room area. They also took part in surveys conducted by outside professional bodies.

The people we spoke with all felt confident that the doctor was knowlegable and trained to do his job. The doctor received appropriate professional development and was able to obtain further relevant qualifications. We saw that the doctor was registered with the General Medical Council and the Independent Doctors Forum.