We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 24 May 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 care 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.

RoodlaneMedical (New Broad Street) provides private general practitioner services.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the private medical 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 RoodlaneMedical (New Broad Street) services are provided to patients under arrangements made by their employer. These types of arrangements are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, at RoodlaneMedical (New Broad Street), we were only able to inspect the services which are not arranged for patients by their employers.

The lead GP 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.

Thirty seven people provided feedback about the service, which was entirely positive.

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 service learned from them and improved.
• The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Services were provided to meet the needs of patients.
• Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.
• Leadership, management and governance of the service assured the delivery of high-quality and person-centred care.

During this inspection we spoke with three people using the service. They all told us they were happy with the quality of their care and treatment. One person said, "from what I have seen, I was impressed. I would come back and recommend to others." Another person told us, "the GP was very pleasant and the appointment didn't feel rushed at all. It was easy to get an appointment."

The treatments areas were clean and suitably equipped. Staff had attended life support training and knew what actions to take in the event of an emergency.

There were enough staff available to meet the needs of people using the service. This meant people were seen without delay and could choose to be seen by a male or female doctor.

People using the service told us they had been provided with information about how to make a complaint and they thought that any complaint would be professionally managed.

We spoke with two people who had recently used the service and also looked at the clinic's most recent patient satisfaction survey results. We found people were pleased with the information they received, the quality of their care and the conduct of the medical and healthcare professionals.

The treatment areas were clean, well equipped and ensured people maintained their privacy. One person using the service said “this is a modern, well -maintained and friendly facility.” The staff team were trained in life support and knew what to do in the event of a medical emergency.

Staff members were appropriately qualified, had regular training and opportunities for professional development. Staff had regular supervision and managerial support. We saw evidence that the quality of the service was monitored and the provider sought feedback from patients, staff and external professionals.

During the visit we spoke to a small number of patients directly, who indicated a high level of satisfaction with the services provided at the medical centre. In addition, observation of the practices of the medical centre, discussion with staff and inspection of records indicated that staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and generally treated them with respect. People felt that staff listened to them and offered them choices about their care and treatment as far as possible.

The premises were well maintained and kept clean and hygienic, with appropriate quality assurance systems in place and effective complaints procedures. Although a survey of people’s experience had not been conducted since 2009, a new system was being put in place to ensure that these would soon be circulated on an ongoing basis. However there was room for improvement in provision of a safeguarding adults policy, more rigorous recruitment procedures for some staff members and further training provision and recording for the staff team in a number of relevant areas.