The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Mayfair Doctors Walk-In Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

37 North Audley Street, Mayfair, London, W1K 6ZL (020) 7499 1581

Provided and run by:
Steeplegrove Clinic Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mayfair Doctors Walk-In Clinic 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 Mayfair Doctors Walk-In Clinic, you can give feedback on this service.

22 September 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This service is rated as Good overall. The service has been inspected twice previously. It was first inspected on 20 June 2018 when it was not rated. There was a further inspection on 6 June 2019. At this inspection it was rated as good overall. It was also rated good for the key questions of safe, caring, responsive and well led it was rated as requires improvement for effective on the basis of one issue that we said they must resolve. The issue that led to the rating of requires improvement in effective was:

  • The provider was not proactive in undertaking clinical improvement activity such as clinical audit.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Mayfair Doctors walk in clinic on 22 September 2020. The key question reviewed in this inspection Is now rated as follows:

Are services effective? – Good

At this inspection we found that the practice had addressed the issues from the previous inspection.

We found that:

  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs. This included the practice participating in clinical improvement activity.

There were a number of other issues from the previous report that we had said the practice should address. These were:

  • Explore opportunities to increase learning from incidents.
  • Review safeguarding training requirements for all staff in line with the competency framework as set out in the intercollegiate guidance.
  • Review systems for ensuring all relevant equipment is identified for routine calibration checks.

The provider reported that these had been addressed, but in the absence of an on-site inspection CQC were unable to review this. These matters do not affect the rating.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

6 June 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (The service was previously inspected 20 June 2018 but was not rated.)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Requires improvement

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Mayfair Doctors Walk-in Clinic, London as part of our inspection programme.

The provider Steeplegrove Clinic has one location, Mayfair Doctors Walk-in Clinic, where they provide privately funded general medical and screening services. The provider also carries out occupational health checks for local companies.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some general 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 Mayfair Doctors Walk-in Clinic services are provided to patients under arrangements made by their employer. These types of arrangements are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, at Mayfair Doctors Walk-in Clinic, we were only able to inspect the services which are not arranged for patients by their employers.

The clinic manager 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 patient feedback on the service through the 24 CQC comment cards completed and two patients we spoke with on the day of inspection. All were positive about the service they received and were very complimentary about the staff.

Our key findings were:

  • The practice had effective systems in place to keep patients safe from harm. There was effective systems for monitoring service provision to ensure it was safe.
  • Clear procedures and protocols were in place and the provider had processes in place to ensure risks were clearly identified and mitigated against.
  • There were systems for learning from incidents and complaints. Although there had been none in the last year.
  • Staff had appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.
  • Patient feedback from our CQC comment cards and through the provider’s own patient surveys was consistently positive about the service.
  • Patients received a timely service to meet their needs.
  • However, there was little evidence of quality improvement activity.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Explore opportunities to increase learning from incidents.
  • Review safeguarding training requirements for all staff in line with the competency framework as set out in the intercollegiate guidance.
  • Review systems for ensuring all relevant equipment is identified for routine calibration checks.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

20 June 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 20 June 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.

The provider Steeplegrove Clinic Limited has one location registered as Mayfair Doctors Walk-In Clinic in London and provides a range of family medical services. The provider also carries out occupational health checks for local companies.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner, including the prescribing of medicines.

One of the owners 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.

Twenty seven patients provided feedback about the service. All the comments we received were positive about the service, for example describing the doctors as caring, sympathetic and professional.

Our key findings were:

  • The GPs were aware of current evidence based guidance and had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The provider had systems in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse.
  • The provider had effective systems in place to record, monitor, analyse and share learning from significant events.
  • The service had arrangements in place to respond to medical emergencies.
  • There were arrangements in place for the management of medicines.
  • There was a clear vision to provide a personalised, high quality service.
  • The patient feedback we received in the course of the inspection indicated that patients were satisfied with the service they received.
  • Information about how to complain was available. The provider had not received any complaints about the service in the last year.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review systems and processes for quality improvement cycles such as completed clinical audits.

2 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service and looked at 30 filled in feedback forms. People were satisfied with the care and treatment received. They felt that treatment had been explained well and found the information provided to be comprehensive. Consent had been obtained by the doctor and the possible risks and benefits of treatment had been outlined.

Care was planned in a way to ensure people's safety. People were assessed by the doctor to determine whether treatment would be suitable. People were provided with post treatment advice and some written information whenre required. There were procedures in place to deal with medical emergencies.

The clinic was clean and well maintained. There were systems in place to reduce the risk of infection, including a policy on infection control.

There was a complaints policy in place and people were given information on how to make a complaint. The people we spoke with and the comments in written feedback were complimentary about the service.