Dr Andrew Rose

Updated 30 May 2019

Dr Andrew Rose also known as Dr Rose’s Surgery is a private doctor located at 5 Sloane Avenue, London, SW3 3JD, in Chelsea and within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. The clinic offers private consultations with a general physician with additional medical screening and vaccination services. The service was previously an NHS funded GP practice which converted to a private service late 2015.

The opening hours are Monday to Friday 9am to 6pm.

Their website address is; www.chelsealondondoctor.com

There is a 24 hour out of hours number which is run by a local service and the clinic themselves are contactable out of hours for non-emergencies by email.

The practice team comprises of one senior male GP, three regular female locum GPs, a female practice manager and two administrative staff.

We carried out this comprehensive 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.

As part of the preparation for the inspection we also reviewed information provided to us by the provider.

During the inspection we utilised a number of methods to support our judgement of the services provided. For example, we asked people using the service to record their views on comment cards, interviewed staff, observed staff interaction with patients and reviewed documents relating to the service.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

These questions therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 30 May 2019

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

Updated 17 September 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people with long-term conditions. Patients with long term conditions were offered annual health reviews specific to their condition. For example, patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) were offered annual in-house spirometry with their health reviews. Longer appointments and home visits were available when needed. The practice undertook risk profiling of the practice population to identify patients with long-term conditions at risk of hospital admission. These patients were invited for review and had comprehensive care plans created to help reduce the risk of admission. The practice held monthly multi-disciplinary team meetings attended by a range of health professionals including district nurses and community palliative care to discuss and review care plans of patients with complex medical needs.

Updated 17 September 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of families, children and young people. The practice had a child protection policy and staff had all received role appropriate training in child protection. They maintained a register of vulnerable children including those to subject to child protection plans to ensure all staff were aware of any issues when reviewing these patients. The practice offered GP led antenatal, postnatal and family planning services. Urgent access appointments were available for children and they were always allocated an appointment on the day. Double appointments were arranged if a parent and child both needed to be seen, including six week postnatal checks for mother and child. Childhood immunisation rates were mostly at the CCG average depending on vaccination. The practice was only accessible by external and internal stairs which would be difficult for families with prams.

Updated 17 September 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of older people. The practice undertook risk profiling of the practice population to identify vulnerable older patients at risk of hospital admission. These patients were invited for review and comprehensive care plans created to help reduce the risk of admission. Clinical staff performed opportunistic screening for dementia during consultations and were pro-active in referring patients to local memory services for diagnosis and investigation if required. The practice held monthly multi-disciplinary team meetings attended by a range of health professionals including district nurses and community palliative care to discuss and review care plans of older patients with complex needs. The practice offered longer appointments on request and home visits for older patients that required them. The practice had a lead for safeguarding vulnerable adults and all staff had received up to date vulnerable adult training.

Updated 17 September 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of working-age people (including those recently retired and students). The age profile of patients at the practice is mainly those of working age, students and the recently retired but the services available did not fully reflect the needs of this group. Routine and emergency appointments could be booked on the same day, however appointments were not available to book in advance. There was no facility to book appointments or request prescriptions online. The practice provided information on health promotion in the practice waiting room and NHS Health Checks were offered to patients.

Updated 17 September 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people experiencing poor mental health (including people with dementia). The practice offered GP led annual health checks for patients experiencing poor mental health and had received an annual physical health check. The practice had a policy to review all patients attending hospital with issues relating to mental health to ensure their needs could be met in the community. The practice was pro-active in identifying patients with anxiety, depression and alcohol misuse and referring them to appropriate community and support services. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of people experiencing poor mental health, including those with dementia. Clinical staff performed opportunistic screening for dementia during consultations and were pro-active in referring patients to local memory services for diagnosis and investigation if required.

Updated 17 September 2015

The practice is rated as good for the care of people whose circumstances may make them vulnerable. The practice maintained a register of patients with learning disabilities and these patients were offered annual health checks. Longer appointments were available if required. The practice regularly worked with multi-disciplinary teams in the case management of vulnerable people. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse in vulnerable adults and children. Staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding information sharing, documentation of safeguarding concerns and how to contact relevant agencies in normal working hours and out of hours.