We carried out a review of the data available to us about Kings Medical Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Kings Medical Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
This service is rated as Good overall. The service had been previously inspected in February 2014 but did not receive a rating at that time.
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 Kings Medical Centre as part of our inspection programme.
The provider delivers several specialist services which include:
The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, in respect of some, but not all of the 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. We were only able to evaluate the services which come into the scope of regulatory requirements with the CQC and therefore only inspected services in relation to carpal tunnel treatment and surgery, the community dermatology Service, and some elements of the adult hearing loss service which included an in-house wax management service which was being piloted. Services we did not inspect included audiology, such as the fitting of hearing aids and devices, and physiotherapy services as these fell outside the scope of CQC registration.
How we inspected this service
Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, considering the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently.
This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.
During our inspection we:
• Looked at the systems in place relating to safety and governance of the service.
• Viewed key policies and procedures.
• Reviewed patient records.
• Interviewed the provider both by telephone and face to face.
• Spoke with staff and received written submissions from them.
• Spoke with patients who used the service.
To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we asked the following questions:
These questions formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.
Our key findings were:
Whilst we found no breaches of regulations, the provider should:
Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care
People received care, treatment and support that met their needs and we saw evidence that they received safe and appropriate care. The provider placed strong emphasis on the consent process and in so doing, carried out a comprehensive pre-assessment routine.
We saw procedures were in place for the prevention, detection and control of infection and the maintenance of appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene.
We inspected the clinical area and found it was suitable for the delivery of an invasive procedure. There was a robust system in place for the sterilisation of surgical instruments.
People were being cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who were receiving strong clinical and managerial support, together with regular training.
We saw evidence of internal audit and review for both procedures performed at the clinic. These were producing high levels of surgical outcomes, supported by action plans where further work was required.
The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.
People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care. We saw evidence that people were treated with respect and in a way that upheld their dignity.
People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We saw evidence that people received safe and appropriate care that met their needs.
People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. Processes were in place to ensure staff were aware of safeguarding procedures, through a program of training
People were cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. The information reviewed at inspection showed that good practice was followed when recruiting staff.
The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.