We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 19 September 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.

Courtfield Private Practice is an independent health service based in Kensington where GP services are carried out to private patients.

Our key findings were:

• Systems were in place to keep patients safe and safeguarded from abuse.
• There were systems in place for clinical staff to be kept up to date with evidence based guidelines and practices.
• Medicines were managed and monitored in a way that kept patients safe.
• There was a programme of quality improvement including clinical audits.
• There were systems to update external bodies such as GPs and consultants of care and treatment being provided.
• All members of staff were up-to-date with training relevant to their role.
• There were comprehensive risk assessments to mitigate current and future risks.
• Policies and procedures to govern activity were in place and reviewed annually.
• Emergency equipment and procedures kept patients and staff safe.
• Systems were in place to protect personal information of patients.
• There was a system for checking parental responsibility for adults attending with a child, but this did not include checking photographic identification.

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

Review the system for establishing parental responsibility of adults attending the service with children.

We spoke with three people who used the service, sampled feedback forms from the last two months and annual collated survey results. People were satisfied with the care and treatment provided. They said they received good information to help them make decisions and were supported by staff. They were positive and complimentary about the practice and staff and told us they were treated with respect.

People who use the service were given appropriate information regarding their care or treatment. The practice website gave a range of information on services available.

Care was planned in a way to ensure people's safety. People had their needs assessed by a doctor before treatment was undertaken and doctors responded with appropriate care and treatment. One person told us, “they are very thorough; they don’t miss anything and they refer on if they need to”.

There were procedures in place to deal with medical emergencies. People were kept safe by clear policies, procedures and training on safeguarding adults and children.

Staff received appropriate professional development and we saw evidence of training, supervision and appraisal.