• Doctor
  • GP practice

Dr Jefferies and Partners

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The Medical Centre, 292 Munster Road, Fulham, London, SW6 6BQ (020) 7385 1965

Provided and run by:
Dr Jefferies and Partners

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Jefferies and Partners 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 Dr Jefferies and Partners, you can give feedback on this service.

8 September 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced inspection at Dr Jefferies and Partners from 6-8 September 2021. Overall, the practice is rated as good.

Safe - Good

Effective - Good

Well-led - Good

Following our previous inspection on 24 January 2019, the practice was rated good overall and for all key questions and population groups.

The full reports for previous inspections can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dr Jefferies and Partners on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Why we carried out this inspection

This inspection was a focused inspection to follow up:

  • Information of concern received by CQC about the safety of the service
  • The inspection focused on the key questions for: safe, effective and well-led. The ratings for the key questions: caring and responsive will be carried forward from the previous inspection.

We also followed up on some specific issues identified for improvement from the previous inspection. These were:

  • low uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical screening
  • the lack of a proactive approach to monitoring and reviewing vulnerable patients
  • the need to strengthen links with health visitors in relation to safeguarding
  • the high rate of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) personalised care adjustments (exception reporting)
  • the need to develop quality improvement activity
  • the need to identify and support patients who are carers.

How we carried out the inspection

Throughout the pandemic CQC has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account 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.

This included:

  • Conducting staff interviews using video conferencing
  • Completing clinical searches on the practice’s patient records system and discussing findings with the provider
  • Reviewing patient records to identify issues and clarify actions taken by the provider
  • Requesting evidence from the provider
  • A short site visit

Our findings

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We have rated this practice as good overall and for all population groups.

We found that:

  • Prior to the inspection, CQC received concerning information about specific aspects of safety at the practice. The inspection showed that these concerns were unfounded.
  • The practice had effective systems in place to manage most risks.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The practice adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
  • The practice had addressed or was in the process of addressing the areas identified at the previous inspection for improvement.

While we found no breaches, the provider should:

  • Ensure that clinical records clearly reflect the clinical rationale in cases where prescribing falls outside of practice policy or national guidelines.
  • Continue work to improve the uptake of childhood immunisations and cervical screening.
  • Review the demand and supply of practice nursing appointments.
  • Continue work to ensure comprehensive clinical coding of diabetes.
  • Record the immune status of staff in line with national guidelines.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

24/01/2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Jefferies and Partners on 24 January 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

At the last inspection in 25 August 2016 we rated the practice as good overall.

At this inspection we have rated this practice as good overall and good for all population groups

We based our judgement of the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • what we found when we inspected
  • information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services and
  • information from the provider, patients, the public and other organisations.

We found that:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect. Feedback from patients we spoke with and CQC comment cards stated staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Although, results from the national GP patient survey showed some patients reported low satisfaction with consultations. The practice had reviewed this feedback and acted on it.
  • Complaints were listened and responded to and used to improve the quality of care.
  • The practice organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Although, results from the national GP patient survey showed some patients reported low satisfaction with appointments. The practice had reviewed this feedback and acted on it.
  • The way the practice was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

Whilst we found no breaches of regulation, the provider should:

  • Develop a proactive approach to monitoring and reviewing vulnerable patients to protect them from harm.
  • Strengthen links with health visitors and other agencies to ensure vulnerable adults and children are helped, supported and protected.
  • Review the availability of anaphylaxis kits in all doctors’ home visiting bags.
  • Consider ways to reduce Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) exception reporting particularly for people with a long-term condition and people experiencing poor mental health.
  • Continue to improve cervical screening and childhood immunisation uptake to bring in line with recognised targets.
  • Develop quality improvement activity to drive improvement in the quality of care patients receive.
  • Maintain the system for identifying and supporting patients who are carers.
  • Continue to improve patient satisfaction with consultations and appointments.

Details of our findings and the evidence supporting our ratings are set out in the evidence tables.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice

25 August 2016

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Jefferies and Partners, Munster Road on 25 August 2016. Overall the practice is rated as good.

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

  • Not all staff had received the appropriate supervision to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • 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.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment. However, patients told us that the service was becoming less personal as they saw a number of different clinicians.
  • Patients said they found it difficult to make an appointment with a named GP but they said they could make an urgent appoint the same day.
  • 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 was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • Consider improving communication with patients who have a hearing impairment.
  • Review systems to identify carers in the practice to ensure they receive appropriate care and support.
  • Improve practice uptake of cervical screening programme amongst eligible women to improve patient care.
  • Continue to ensure that all clinical staff receive appropriate and ongoing supervision to carry out their role competently and unsupervised.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice