We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 3 July 2018 to ask the provider 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.

Southdowns Private Healthcare is a private GP service based in Emsworth, Hampshire. The practice offers a range of other services including advanced health screening, clinics for joint pain, mole assessment, and vaccinations.

The Nominated Individual is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

Seventeen people provided written feedback about the practice, by completing CQC comment cards, and we also spoke to one patient who contacted us prior to the inspection. They told us care was excellent, and that they felt involved in decision-making about the care and treatment they received. They told us they felt listened to and supported by staff, and had sufficient time during consultations to make an informed decision about the choice of treatments available to them. All of the 17 CQC comment cards we received were highly positive and aligned with these views.

Our key findings were :

• Patients told us they found it easy to access appointments with a GP.
• The practice offered out-of-hours appointments if required.
• The practice offered a range of vaccinations for children, adults and travel purposes, as well as post vaccination advice regarding (for example) common side-effects.
• The practice offered a counselling service in sexual health to accompany sexual health testing.
• The practice offered access to computerised tomography (CT) scans, to detect cancers and cardiovascular disease. CT scans use X-rays and a computer to create detailed images of the inside of the body.
• The practice offered a range of health checks with a GP.
• Patient satisfaction with the standard and quality of services received was high.

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

• Review arrangements for recording vaccine fridge temperatures.
• Review arrangements for consent procedures for childhood immunisations.

We spoke with two patients who used the service. They were both satisfied with their treatment. Comments about the service included: "I felt I was listened to withall my concerns." Another pateint told us, "I can’t speak highlyenough about the service I received. We found the provider was protecting people from unsafe treatment by assessing them individually. One patient told us, "I've never ever had such a wonderful explanation of my condition.”

Staff had received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and children. They were aware of the appropriate agencies to whom safeguarding concerns should be raised to ensure people were protected from risks of harm.

We found members of staff were appropriately supported, trained and supervised in delivering care and treatment to patients who used the service. Staff told us they had annual appraisals and the training they required.

The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality of service provision. They undertook regular audits and monthly patient satisfaction surveys.

We observed systems in place to assess and monitor complaints at the practice. We saw that the complaints process had been effective against those complaints we had reviewed. Members of staff told us that any learning from complaints was communicated at practice meetings.