We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of SurreyGP on 7 December 2017 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.

SurreyGP provides private GP services and vaccination services including travel services. Additionally it carries out private medical examinations for employment and occupational purposes and provides some facial aesthetic services.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At SurreyGP the aesthetic cosmetic treatments are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore we were only able to inspect GP services but not the facial aesthetic services.

The Medical Director 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.

Fifty three people provided feedback about the service both face to face and via comment cards all of which was positive about the standard of care they received. The service was described as excellent, professional, helpful and caring.

Our key findings were:

• The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based research or guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• The practice were proactive in seeking patient feedback and identifying and solving concerns.
• The culture of the service encouraged candour, openness and honesty.

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

• Consider reviewing whether all patients should provide personal identification on registration with the practice.
• Review whether to install a hearing loop and consider providing access to an interpreter service.
• Review whether to provide a written business continuity plan and lone worker policy.

A single inspector carried out the inspection. The focus of the visit was to answer five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what patients and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Patients had confidence in the service and the knowledge and skills of the clinical staff.

There were regular reviews to discuss clinical issues, and in particular following adverse incidents to learn from, and improve safety.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

There were arrangements in place for the safe storage of medicines and also arrangements for checking equipment.

We found the service to be safe.

Is the service effective?

Records demonstrated that people's consent was obtained and other professionals were kept informed of patient's needs and progress.

Patients told us they appreciated that staff had time for them and they did not feel rushed and we saw they were seen on time during the visit.

Some patients told us they were returning to the clinic due to previous positive experiences and others were attending because the specific treatment was only available privately.

We found the service to be effective

Is the service caring?

One patient described the staff as "brilliant" and other feedback described how people felt they could "trust" the staff.

We observed staff talking to people in a friendly, professional and courteous way and one patient said the staff made them "feel like a real person".

Staff spoke with confidence about how they were required to provide people with a high quality service and how the needs of the patient are paramount.

We found the service to be caring.

Is the service responsive?

We were told that patients could be offered appointments very quickly, and the same day if necessary. We were told the clinic was open at weekends to enable people who were at work or school to attend. Patients confirmed they had been offered appointments in a timely way.

We found the service to be caring.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us their managers were approachable and supportive. They felt able to raise any ideas or concerns with them.

We saw there were detailed reviews following incidents and actions were made and implemented to reduce the risk and improve safety.

Patient's complaints were addressed and detailed feedback provided to the complainant.

We found the service to be well-led.