The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Dr O'Keeffe's Practice Also known as The Surgery

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

26 Eaton Terrace, London, SW1W 8TS (020) 7730 5070

Provided and run by:
Anthony Guy O'Keeffe

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 O'Keeffe's Practice 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 O'Keeffe's Practice, you can give feedback on this service.

01/10/2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the inspection in May 2019 we found concerns around infection control, medicines management (emergency medicines and prescription pad security), significant event management, safeguarding (identification) and consent. We asked the provider to make improvements regarding these concerns. We checked these areas as part of this focussed inspection in October 2020 and found improvements had been made.

At the inspection in May 2019 we said the provider should review the need to obtain a paediatric pulse oximeter. For this inspection in October 2020 the provider sent us evidence that a paediatric pulse oximeter had been procured.

Dr Guy O’Keefe’s Practice provides a private general practice service to patients at 26 Eaton Terrace in the borough of Westminster in London. Dr O’Keefe’s Practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the regulated activities of Treatment of disease, disorder or

injury and Diagnostic and screening procedures.

We did not request feedback from patients as part of this desk-based follow up inspection.

Our key findings were :

  • Risks including infection prevention processes had been assessed and an infection control audit had been carried out.
  • Appropriate emergency medicines were held and there were suitable systems and processes in place to ensure they were safe to use.
  • Processes to identify and manage significant events had been improved.
  • Governance processes and procedures had been improved, however further improvement could be made by ensuring these process and procedures were embedded as part of a comprehensive, regular cycle of risk management and performance monitoring.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • continue to review and improve processes and procedures for overall risk management to ensure they have become embedded as part of a comprehensive, regular cycle of performance monitoring.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

02 May 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr O’Keeffe’s Practice to follow up on breaches of regulations.

CQC inspected the service on 11 May 2018 and asked the provider to make improvements regarding safe and effective care and well-led service. We checked these areas as part of this comprehensive inspection and found those concerns had been addressed; however, we identified some new issues during our recent visit. Following our previous inspection in May 2018, we issued two requirement notices for breaches of Regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Good governance.

Dr Guy O’Keefe’s Practice provides a private general practice service to patients at 26 Eaton Terrace in the borough of Westminster in London. Dr O’Keefe’s Practice is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the regulated activities of Treatment of disease, disorder or injury and Diagnostic and screening procedures.

Prior to our inspection, patients completed CQC comment cards telling us about their experiences of using the service. Fifteen people provided wholly positive feedback about the service. Dr O’Keeffe was described as caring, attentive and patients felt they were treated with respect.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The service had carried out a safety risk assessment of the premises and equipment; however, we found not all risks had not been fully assessed and mitigated.
  • The premises were clean and well maintained, we saw evidence of actions taken to prevent and control the spread of infections. However, no annual infection control audit had been carried out since our inspection in May 2018.
  • Not all emergency medicines were available as described in recognised guidance. There was no record kept of checks to make sure medicines were available, within their expiry dates, and in working order.
  • At this inspection we found medical equipment had been calibrated to ensure it was safe to use.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • We found evidence of quality improvement measures including clinical audits and there was evidence of action taken to change practice. Follow up audits demonstrated that learning and quality improvement had been achieved.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Services were provided to meet the needs of patients.
  • There was a system for recording and acting on incidents, adverse events and safety alerts. The provider shared safety alerts with staff effectively.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the need to obtain a paediatric pulse oximeter.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

11 May 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 11 May 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 not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was not 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 not 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 Guy O’Keefe’s Practice provides a private general practice service to patients at 26 Eaton Terrace in the borough of Westminster in London.

Prior to our inspection, patients completed CQC comment cards telling us about their experiences of using the service. Thirty-four people provided wholly positive feedback about the service. Dr O’Keeffe was described as caring, attentive and efficient.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had suitable safeguarding processes and staff knew their responsibilities for safeguarding adults and children.
  • The service had carried out a safety risk assessment of the premises and equipment; however, there was minimal evidence that risks were fully assessed and well-managed; a number of health and safety and premises checks had not been undertaken and equipment had not been calibrated.
  • The premises were clean and well maintained, however no infection control audits or infection control training had been completed.
  • Procedures for managing medical emergencies including access to emergency medicines and equipment were safe.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Services were provided to meet the needs of patients.
  • There was a system for recording and acting on incidents, adverse events and safety alerts. The provider shared safety alerts with staff effectively.
  • There was limited evidence of systems to support good governance and management.
  • Staff felt involved and supported and worked well as a team.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

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

  • Establish a system to provide appropriate support and signposting for patients with a caring responsibility

27 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak with any people using this service as no one had an appointment during our visit. As a single handed doctor Dr O'Keeffe had arranged this so that he had time to discuss the service with us. We saw the patient feedback forms analysed in June 2012. These showed a high level of patient satisfaction.