This service is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Andrew Rose on 23 April 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

Dr Andrew Rose is a private doctor consultation and treatment service. The clinic offers private consultations with a general physician with additional medical screening and vaccination services.

Dr Andrew Rose 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.

We received feedback from 22 people about the service, including comment cards, all of which were very positive about the service and indicated that clients were treated with kindness and respect and the premises was always clean. Staff were described as helpful, caring, thorough and professional.

Our key findings were:

• Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. The service lead was the lead member of staff for safeguarding and had undertaken adult safeguarding to level two and child safeguarding training to level three. Non- clinical staff were trained to level to level two for child safeguarding and level one for adults.
• The provider was aware of current evidence based guidance and they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out his role.
• The provider was aware of their responsibility to respect people’s diversity and human rights.
• Patients were able to access care and treatment from the clinic within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
• There was a complaints procedure in place and information on how to complain was readily available in the practice leaflet.
• Governance arrangements were in place. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
• The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
• The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
• The service had systems in place to collect and analyse feedback from patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review the recent Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) and ensure the recommendations have been implemented, including establishing a regime of fire alarm testing.
• Review the arrangements for the storage and security of blank prescription pads in line with best practice guidance.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Andrew Rose also known as Dr Rose’s Surgery on 9 July 2015. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Please note that when referring to information throughout this report, for example any reference to the Quality and Outcomes Framework data, this relates to the most recent information available to the CQC at that time.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

• Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns, and to report incidents and near misses. Information about safety was recorded, monitored, appropriately reviewed and addressed.
• Risks to patients were assessed and well-managed, including managing medicines and infection control. The practice had safeguarding vulnerable children and adults policies and staff were up to date with safeguarding training.
• Patients’ needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered following best practice guidance. Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and clinical staff had annual appraisals to identify any further training needs.

• Patients said staff were helpful, friendly, caring and treated them with dignity and respect. They were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• Patients were generally satisfied with the appointment system and said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and that there was continuity of care. Urgent appointments were available the same day.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from patients through surveys, comments and suggestions and they acted on feedback to improve care and services.

However there were areas of practice where the provider needs to make improvements.

Importantly the provider should;

• Ensure that all staff who may be called upon to perform chaperone duties receives a disclosure and barring check (DBS).
• Review the processes to ensure that infection control audits are formally recorded in line with recommended guidance.
• Ensure that Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training is undertaken by all clinical staff.
• Ensure that all newly appointed staff files contain formal documentation of the pre-employment checks undertaken.
• Conduct more independent clinical audits.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We spoke with two people who use the service and both said they were very satisfied with the service. Both had been able to book for a same day appointments that morning. One person said "the doctors are very kind and helpful, and explained my child's condition clearly." People felt that personal issues were handled sympathetically and confidentiality was maintained. We also looked at people's comments on the NHS Choices website and saw that the practice had monitored these and responded to some feedback, for example by installing a telephone queuing system for people making appointments by telephone.

We found that people were given appropriate information about the services available and were involved in their care and treatment. If they needed to be referred to a specialist this was explained and they could express a preference about who they were referred to. Their needs were assessed and their care planned in a way that met these needs and was delivered based on national guidance.

There were policies in place and staff had been trained in both child and adult safeguarding procedures. The practice had systems in place to ensure that the safety of the premises and the quality of service was regularly assessed and monitored.