The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: BG Medical Clinic Also known as Romford, Medical Clinic

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

48 North Street, Romford, RM1 1BH

Provided and run by:
BG Medical Clinic Ltd

All Inspections

04 July 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was an unrated inspection.

We carried out a follow-up announced inspection at BG Medical Clinic under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This inspection was to review improvements made by the provider, regarding warning notices issued for Regulations 12 and 17, following our comprehensive inspection on 19 January 2023.

Following the inspection on 19 January 2023, we took urgent civil enforcement action to suspend the service for a 6-weeks duration, by issuing a Section 31 notice under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The service was placed in ‘special measures’.

We re-inspected the service on 06 March 2023 to assess whether the provider had made sufficient improvements to allow the service to re-open to patients. Following this inspection, we subsequently took further urgent civil enforcement action to suspend the service for a further 9-weeks duration, by issuing a Section 31 notice under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

We carried out a further inspection on 02 May 2023, and found the provider had made sufficient improvement to allow the urgent suspension to lapse when the suspension period had ended and to allow the provider to reopen the service.

Dr Andrean Damyanov 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:

We found some improvements had been made in providing safe services regarding:

  • The provider had made some improvements to their safeguarding systems. Following our inspection, the provider could demonstrate that all clinical staff had completed safeguarding training for children, at the appropriate level, in line with intercollegiate guidance. In relation to safeguarding training for vulnerable adults, we saw that all but one clinician had subsequently completed training at the appropriate level.

  • The provider had made improvements to their system to safely manage the cold chain for medicines that require refrigeration.

  • The provider had implemented a system for checking patient identity including parental authority.

  • The provider had made some improvements regarding the system to safely manage infection prevention and control.

  • The provider had made some improvements regarding significant events management.

  • The provider had made improvements system to safely manage the control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH).

We found the provider had made insufficient improvements in providing safe services

  • The provider could not demonstrate they operated a failsafe system for urgent referrals.

  • The provider could not demonstrate they had a safe system in place to effectively manage

staff immunisations and certified immunity.

We found the provider had made some improvements in providing effective services

  • The provider could demonstrate they had made improvements to manage specific staff training, specifically regarding ultrasound scanning for cardiology and general surgery purposes.

We found the provider had made insufficient improvements in providing effective services

  • The provider could not demonstrate they carried out any quality improvement/clinical audit activity at the service.
  • The provider could not demonstrate they had an effective system in place to manage specific staff training regarding ante-natal ultrasound scanning and competency checking.
  • The provider could not demonstrate they had an effective system in place to manage regular staff training.Following the inspection, the provider submitted evidence regarding regular staff training and we found that whilst some improvement was evident, we identified some gaps in staff training.
  • The provider could not demonstrate they had an effective system in place to manage supervision for non-medical staff.

We found the provider had made insufficient improvements in providing responsive services

  • The provider could not demonstrate they operated an effective system to manage patients complaints.

We found the provider had made some improvements to concerns we found in the well- led key question:

  • Leaders could demonstrate that they had some capacity and skills to deliver quality, sustainable care.
  • The overall governance arrangements had been improved in some areas, however, we noted there was inconsistency across several areas.
  • The provider had made insufficient improvements to enable them to safely manage complaints.
  • The provider could demonstrate they had an awareness or understand of their obligations regarding 'Duty of Candour'.
  • The service had some processes for managing risks, issues and performance.
  • We saw evidence of some systems and processes for learning and improvement.

The service will remain in special measures until we have undertaken the next inspection and this will be reviewed at that time. This will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

19 January 2023

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Inadequate overall. This is the first inspection of this service.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Inadequate

Are services effective? – Inadequate

Are services caring? – Requires improvement

Are services responsive? – Inadequate

Are services well-led? – Inadequate

We carried out an unannounced inspection at BG Medical Clinic under Section 60 of the

Health and Social Care Act 2008 due to concerns that dental services were being carried out at the service location without being appropriately registered.

At this inspection we took a primary medical services (PMS) and dental team to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This combined report includes evidence gathered by the PMS and dental teams.

Following the inspection, we undertook civil enforcement action, under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, by:

  • Imposing an urgent suspension, of six-weeks duration, by issuing a s.31 notice under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
  • Issuing warning notices regarding Regulations 12 (Safe care and treatment) and 17 (Good governance).

BG Medical Clinic Limited is an independent provider of medical services and offers a full range of private general practice services predominantly to the Bulgarian community. This is the first inspection of the service.


Dr Andrean Damyanov 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 provider did not have an adequate clinical system in place to enable safe prescribing and patient reviews.
  • The provider did not submit evidence of appropriate medical indemnity insurance for all clinical staff who worked at the service.
  • The provider did not have a system or policy in place to safely manage patient safety alerts and follow-up patients who may be affected by them.
  • The provider did not have a system in place to safely manage patients who had been prescribed medicines.
  • The provider did not have a system or policy in place to safely manage patients who had a long term condition.
  • The provider did not have a system in place to safely manage laboratory test results for patients who attended the service.
  • The provider told us that a dentistry, including surgical procedures, was not provided, at the location. However, we reviewed evidence to demonstrate that dentistry, including evidence of surgical procedures, had been carried out at this service.
  • The provider did not have a system or policy in place to safely manage recruitment, including disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks.
  • The provider could not demonstrate there was oversight of their patient list and relative risk regarding their patient population group.
  • The provider did not have a system or policy in place to safely manage emergency medicines and equipment.
  • There was limited evidence of a system and processes in place regarding safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.
  • Clinical records and ultrasound images were not maintained appropriately from a legal-medical perspective.
  • There was an overall lack of clinical governance and oversight for patient care.
  • The provider did not have a system in place to safely manage significant events.
  • The provider did not have a system in place to safely manage patients complaints.
  • The provider did not have a system in place to drive quality improvement, including clinical audit.
  • Some staff did not have the required training, knowledge and experience to carry out the roles that were undertaken.

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

  • Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way for service users.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to review and update service policies regularly, in line with relevant national guidance.
  • Actively seek patient engagement and feedback from those who attend the service.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

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

06 March 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was an un-rated inspection at this service.

We carried out an announced inspection at BG Medical Clinic under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to follow-up on concerns we found during our previous inspection on 19 January 2023. Following our previous inspection, we undertook urgent civil enforcement action to suspend the service for a six-weeks duration, by issuing a s.31 notice under the Health and Social Care Act 2008. In addition, we issued warning notices regarding Regulations 12 and 17 and the service was placed in ‘special measures’.

At this inspection we took a primary medical services (PMS) team to check whether the service had made sufficient improvements since we imposed the six-weeks suspension under s.31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This report includes evidence gathered by our PMS teams.

Following the inspection, we undertook further civil enforcement action, under the Health and Social Care Act 2008, by:

  • Imposing an urgent suspension, of 9-weeks duration, by issuing a s.31 notice under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

BG Medical Clinic Limited is an independent provider of medical services and offers a full range of private general practice services predominantly to the Bulgarian community.


Dr Andrean Damyanov 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 provider did not have an adequate clinical system in place to enable safe prescribing and patient reviews.
  • The provider had appropriate evidence in place of appropriate medical indemnity insurance for all clinical staff who worked at the service.
  • The provider had made some improvements to their system to safely manage patient safety alerts and follow-up patients who may be affected by them.
  • The provider did not have a system in place to safely manage patients who had been prescribed medicines.
  • The provider did not have a system or policy in place to safely manage patients who had a long term condition.
  • The provider did not have a safe system in place to safely manage laboratory test results for patients who attended the service.
  • The provider had made improvements to enable them to safely manage recruitment, including disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks.
  • The provider could not demonstrate they had appropriate oversight of their patient list and relative risk regarding their patient population group.
  • The provider had made some improvements regarding their emergency equipment. However, we found some emergency medicines were missing and this had not been formally risk assessed.

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

  • Care and treatment must be provided in a safe way for service users.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

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