We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 2 August 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.

Dr Wayne Cottrell is an independent health service based in Canary Wharf, London.

Our key findings were:

• Fire drills were not documented.
• Cleaning of medical equipment, such as the ear irrigator, was not documented.
• Staff knew how to recognise and report potential safeguarding issues and had completed safeguarding training.
• Appropriate emergency medicines and equipment were accessible for staff and we saw evidence of regular checks.
• The service had implemented a new patient identification policy in order to verify that adults attending with children for appointments were the legal guardians.
• Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making, although none of the clinicians had completed any recent Mental Capacity Act 2005 training.
• The service delivered care in line with relevant and current evidence based guidance and standards.
• The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided through quality improvement activity such as clinical audits.
• At the end of every week the GP on duty reviews all the records for children who attended appointments the previous week and sends a follow up email to check how they are feeling.
• Clinicians had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.
• The service did not offer interpretation services, although staff could speak languages other than English.
• Patient feedback was positive about the service experienced.
• The service organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs, and the facilities and premises were appropriate for the services delivered.
• The service had a complaints policy in place, and complaints we reviewed had been handled appropriately and in a timely way.
• There was a clear leadership structure, and staff told us that they felt able to raise concerns and were confident that these would be addressed.
• The service had a governance framework in place, which supported the delivery of quality care.
• There were systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation.

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

• Review the level of oversight of and access to health and safety risk assessments for the premises.
• Review the process for documenting fire evacuation drills.
• Review the process for documenting the cleaning of medical equipment, such as the ear irrigator.
• Review training requirements and updates for clinicians in relation to consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Review the necessity for interpretation services for patients whose first language is not English.