The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • GP practice

Archived: King's College Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

3rd Flr Macadam Building, Surrey Street, London, WC2R 2LS (020) 7848 2613

Provided and run by:
King's College Health Centre

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

19 May 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at King’s College Health Centre on 19 May 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The practice had good facilities and in most respects was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure all appropriate spill kits are available within the practice.
  • Monitor improvements to medicines management to ensure systems remain robust.
  • Complete and record a risk assessment of the practice’s decision not to stock medicine excluded from the emergency medicines kit.
  • Review the system for the identification of carers to ensure all carers have been identified and provided with support.
  • Advertise in the reception area that translation services are available.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

21 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service. They felt that the GP spent time listening to their concerns and explaining any treatment needed. We also looked at people's comments on the NHS Choices website. We saw that a negative comment had been reviewed by the Patient Participation Group (PPG) who were also involved in reviewing patient feedback questionnaires.

People were involved in making decisions about their care. If they needed to be referred to a specialist this was explained and they were able to express a preference of where they were referred to. People were treated by suitably qualified and skilled staff that received appropriate professional development. People's needs were assessed and their care was always planned in a way to ensure their safety and welfare. Where people had had a chronic disease review there was documented evidence to show that a treatment plan had been developed to manage their condition for the coming months.

There was emergency equipment and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities in a medical emergency.

There was a procedure in place to ensure that staff were able to identify and respond appropriately to abuse of children. There was a policy and procedure in place for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults staff were receiving online training.

Medical records were securely stored and most were fit for purpose. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received.