The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Dr Rowland Payne Dermatology

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

27 Devonshire Place, London, W1G 6JF (020) 7224 1228

Provided and run by:
Dr Rowland Payne Dermatology Ltd

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 Rowland Payne Dermatology 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 Rowland Payne Dermatology, you can give feedback on this service.

24 February 2023

During a routine inspection

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 Rowland Payne Dermatology as part of our inspection programme.

Dr Rowland Payne Dermatology is a consultant led independent healthcare provider offering dermatological services to fee-paying patients.

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 exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Dr Rowland Payne Dermatology provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example Botulinum toxin treatments, which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The lead consultant 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.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had systems to keep patients and staff safe. This included in respect of safeguarding, environmental risk assessments and infection prevention and control. However, the service did not have all the required emergency medicines during the inspection with no written risk assessment for their omission. The service ordered the medicine during the inspection and provided us with the evidence of the order during the inspection.
  • The service assessed needs and delivered care in line with current legislation and evidence-based guidelines. Clinicians had the knowledge and experience to carry out their roles and the service was actively involved in quality improvement activity to improve patient care.
  • Patients were treated with kindness and respect and patients were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The service organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs.
  • The way the service was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure there are risk assessments for emergency medicines, recommended in national guidance, not within the premises.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

26 September 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 26 September 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.

As part of our inspection we asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received 39 comment cards all of these were wholly positive about the service experienced. Patients said that staff were accommodating and the treatment provided was of an excellent standard.

Our key findings were:

  • The provider had a clear vision to deliver high quality care for patients.
  • There were systems and processes in place for taking action and learning lessons from significant events which improved systems in the service. Although all staff were aware of events and there was clear evidence of action taken to make improvements, the service was not recording significant events in line with their policy.
  • The service had clearly defined systems, processes and practices to minimise risks to patient safety. Most risks had been assessed and addressed. However, we found that the building managers had yet to implement all of the actions from the latest fire risk assessment.
  • Policies and procedures were in place to govern all relevant areas yet the service had not followed its recruitment policy in respect of a self-employed contractor. This individual did not have contact with patients.
  • The service had adequate arrangements to respond to emergencies. However not all equipment was being checked regularly to ensure it was operational and, although the service had a supply of emergency medicines, a risk assessment had not been undertaken to ensure that the medicines stocked were sufficient.
  • Staff were aware of and used current evidence based guidance relevant to their area of expertise to provide effective care.
  • Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was an effective system in place for obtaining patients’ consent.
  • 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 clinic was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Continue to engage with the building management to ensure any fire risks are addressed.
  • Review recruitment and training procedures to ensure that all staff have been subject to proper checks and are adequately trained.
  • Review emergency medicines and equipment to ensure that medicines are appropriate and are adequate to respond to risk and that the working status of emergency equipment is regularly checked to ensure that it is fully operational.

Follow the service’s policy for documenting significant events and learning.