The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Dr Wayne Cottrell

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

34 North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5HX (020) 3197 9100

Provided and run by:
Cyberdoc Medical 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 Wayne Cottrell 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 Wayne Cottrell, you can give feedback on this service.

25/09/2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Wayne Cottrell on 25 September 2019. CQC previously inspected the service on 2 August 2018 and asked the provider to make improvements namely:

  • Review the level of oversight of and access to health and safety risk assessments for the premises.
  • Review the process for documenting fire evacuation drills.
  • Review the process for documenting the cleaning of medical equipment, such as the ear irrigator.
  • Review training requirements and updates for clinicians in relation to consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • Review the necessity for interpretation services for patients whose first language is not English.

We checked these areas as part of this comprehensive inspection and found these issues had been addressed.

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 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At Dr Wayne Cottrell some services are provided to patients under arrangements made by their employer or an insurance provider with whom the patient holds an insurance policy (other than a standard health insurance policy). These types of arrangements are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, at Dr Wayne Cottrell, we were only able to inspect the services which are not arranged for patients by their employers or an insurance provider with whom the patient holds a policy (other than a standard health insurance policy).

The Provider is subject to a condition of registration to have a 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. The provider did not have a registered manager at the time of the inspection. The provider had notified the Care Quality Commission of the absence of the registered manager. The Care Quality Commission had received an application from an individual to become the registered manager at the provider and was processing this.

We also asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received 68 comment cards. All the comments were positive. The comments emphasised the convenience of the service. It was easy to get appointments; the on-line booking system was easy to use. Patients spent little time waiting to be seen. The staff were good listeners, were caring and professional.

Our key findings were:

  • The care provided was safe. There were systems for reporting, investigating and learning from incidents. The provider was trained to the correct level in safeguarding and had made safeguarding referrals when appropriate.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • There was an efficient and effective service for patients’ tests with almost all tests completed on the same day.
  • Staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • There was effective leadership and staff expressed satisfaction about the work. There was a low staff turnover.

We saw the following outstanding practice:

  • All patients could specify how and when they wanted the practice to communicate with them. The practice systems were set up to accommodate this. This service was of particular importance to those attending the practice for sexual health appointments.
  • The practice offered anal Papanicolaou smear testing particularly for men who have sex with men. This test is an effective screening tool for anal cancer. The service is not generally available at other GP practices.
Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

02/08/2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 2 August 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.

Dr Wayne Cottrell is an independent health service based in Canary Wharf, London.

Our key findings were:


  • Fire drills were not documented.
  • Cleaning of medical equipment, such as the ear irrigator, was not documented.
  • Staff knew how to recognise and report potential safeguarding issues and had completed safeguarding training.
  • Appropriate emergency medicines and equipment were accessible for staff and we saw evidence of regular checks.
  • The service had implemented a new patient identification policy in order to verify that adults attending with children for appointments were the legal guardians.
  • Clinicians understood the requirements of legislation and guidance when considering consent and decision making, although none of the clinicians had completed any recent Mental Capacity Act 2005 training.
  • The service delivered care in line with relevant and current evidence based guidance and standards.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided through quality improvement activity such as clinical audits.
  • At the end of every week the GP on duty reviews all the records for children who attended appointments the previous week and sends a follow up email to check how they are feeling.
  • Clinicians had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.
  • The service did not offer interpretation services, although staff could speak languages other than English.
  • Patient feedback was positive about the service experienced.
  • The service organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs, and the facilities and premises were appropriate for the services delivered.
  • The service had a complaints policy in place, and complaints we reviewed had been handled appropriately and in a timely way.
  • There was a clear leadership structure, and staff told us that they felt able to raise concerns and were confident that these would be addressed.
  • The service had a governance framework in place, which supported the delivery of quality care.
  • There were systems and processes for learning, continuous improvement and innovation.

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

  • Review the level of oversight of and access to health and safety risk assessments for the premises.
  • Review the process for documenting fire evacuation drills.
  • Review the process for documenting the cleaning of medical equipment, such as the ear irrigator.
  • Review training requirements and updates for clinicians in relation to consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
  • Review the necessity for interpretation services for patients whose first language is not English.