Archived: Maltz Medical Centre Limited

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 26 January 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 Maltz 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. The registered manager is supported by three administrative staff who consults five days a week from a room at 27 Harley Street which is rented from another health care provider. The service also has an arrangement with the provider to access to emergency medicines and equipment. Dr Maltz consults an average of 10 patients a day at the clinic.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 for the regulated activities of Treatment of disease, disorder or injury and Diagnostic and screening procedures.

We received 40 completed CQC comment cards which were all very positive about the level of service and the care provided. We spoke with two patients who were very happy with how easy it was to arrange the appointments but could not comment of the level of service as it was their first clinic attendance.

Our key findings were:

• Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. The service lead was the lead member of staff for safeguarding and had undertaken adult but not child safeguarding training. Whilst the provider did not directly provide clinical services for patients under 18 there is an expectation that staff working in a health care setting are trained in child safeguarding in line with the intercollegiate guidance.
• The provider was aware of current evidence based guidance and they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out his role.
• The provider was aware of their responsibility to respect people’s diversity and human rights.
• Patients were able to access care and treatment from the clinic within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
• There was a complaints procedure in place and information on how to complain was readily available.
• Governance arrangements were in place. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
• 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 service had systems in place to collect and analyse feedback from patients.

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

• Complete safeguarding training in accordance with intercollegiate guidance to include for children as well as adults.
• Review the need to update with their Cardiology Continuing Professional Development (CPD).
• Review arrangements for providing interpretation services to ensure patients have access to appropriate support.