Archived: Victoria

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 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.

Victoria provides a private general practice doctors clinic. The clinic offers similar services to those offered at a NHS GP practice such as blood tests, referral to a specialist doctor and health screening. In addition, it offers sporting medical certificates, imaging, work, immigration and visa medicals, weight management, and after travel health checks.

The medical director is the registered manager. A registered manager is the 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.

As part of our inspection, we reviewed 12 Care Quality Commission comment cards where patients made extremely positive comments about the service. They described the service as very professional, they stated the staff were welcoming and professional and the service as good and excellent.

The provider invited patients to complete an online feedback form. From the 1 January to the 19 March 2018 they had received 26 feedback forms where the patients rated the doctors from one poor to five excellent,  22 rated the doctor at five and three patients rated them as four. Many described the service as professional, friendly and efficient. Where a patient had given a low score the provider dealt with this as a complaint.

Our key findings were:

• The clinic had clear systems to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.
• The clinic had reliable systems in place to prevent and protect people from a healthcare-associated infection.
• The clinic had arrangements in place to receive and comply with patient safety alerts, recalls and rapid response reports issued.
• The clinicians assessed patients’ needs. This included their clinical needs and their mental and physical wellbeing.
• The provider advised patients what to do if their condition got worse and where to seek further help and support, such as the patient’s NHS GP.
• Staff had the necessary skills and training to carry out their roles.
• The practice obtained consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance.
• Staff recognised the importance of patients’ dignity and respect.
• The provider had a complaints process in place and we saw the staff had responded to complaints. 
• The provider understood the challenges to the service and what actions they had to take to address them.

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

• The provider should ensure they review their business continuity plan to ensure it covers arrangements for the safety and security of patient care records should the clinic close.