Care Standards Tribunal, 2020-05-12 (AZJ Healthcare Services Ltd v Care Quality Commission)
| Jurisdiction | United Kingdom |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKFTT 0178 (HESC) |
| Date | 12 May 2020 |
| Registration Number | 2019/3842/EA |
| Court | Care Standards Tribunal |
[2020] UKFTT 0178 (HESC)
1
Care Standards
The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care
Chamber) Rules 2008
[2019] 3842.EA
Remote Hearing by Video [V Kinly]
on 31 March, 1 April and 23 April 2020
Panel deliberation hearing on 29 April 2020
Before
Tribunal Judge McCarthy
Specialist Member Cairns
Specialist Member Jacobs
AZJ HEALTHCARE SERVICES LTD Appellant
-v-
CARE QUALITY COMMISSION Respondent
DECISION
The Application
1. The Tribunal received the application for appeal on 30 September 2019. The
appeal is against the respondent’s decision dated 4 September 2019 to cancel
the appellant’s registration as a provider in respect of the following regulated
activities: diagnostic and screening procedures, surgical procedures and
treatment of disease, disorder or injury.
2. To avoid confusion, we mention that when we refer to the appellant we are
referring to the registered provider, namely AZJ Healthcare Services Limited.
Mr Jan is the Registered Manager and Nominated Individual for the provider’s
activities.
Remote hearing
3. As a result of the restrictions on movements imposed in response to the
coronavirus pandemic, the Tribunal with the agreement of the parties arranged
for this appeal to be heard using video conferencing. During the three days of
[2020] UKFTT 0178 (HESC)
2
hearing, we were alert to technical difficulties encountered by those attending
and ensured these did not prevent the giving of evidence or argument by
allowing suitable breaks and providing appropriate technical advice and
support. At the end of the hearing both parties confirmed they had been able to
present their cases and participate effectively despite the physical distance.
Attendance
4. The appellant was represented by Mr Akhtar Zeb Jan, the Registered Manager
of AZJ Healthcare Services Ltd. The respondent was represented by Dr M T
Deignan of Counsel.
5. Also attending were the respondent’s witnesses: Ms Victoria Marsden
(Inspection Manager), Mr Jonathan Weeks (Compliance Inspector, BDS
Qualified), Mr William Black (Dental Advisor) and Dr Tim Ballard (National
Clinical Advisor in Primary Medical Services (General Practice, Independent
Health and Online Care). There were no witnesses for the appellant other than
Mr Jan.
Background
6. The appellant registered with the respondent on 27 October 2011 to provide
regulated activities of diagnostic and screening procedures, surgical
procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The Certificate of
Registration is dated 2 November 2011, which is also the date when Mr Jan
was registered as the Registered Manager.
7. The written evidence includes a description of the site, which is a renovated
Victorian property comprising of: on the ground floor, a reception, surgery room,
decontamination room and an operating theatre; on the first floor, a consultation
office, two surgeries and a bathroom; and on the third floor, domestic
accommodation. Mr Jan said the third floor was separate from the practice but
we were not advised whether it had separate access.
8. The respondent carried out inspections of the appellant’s Park Clinic on 17
January 2012. Because the appellant was found not to be compliant with
several requirements, a focussed follow-up inspection took place on 3 May
2012. Ongoing concerns remained regarding cleanliness and infection control,
which led to a second follow-up inspection occurring on 24 July 2012. The
respondent’s report issued in August 2012 reveals the appellant was found to
be fully in compliance.
9. The respondent undertook an unannounced inspection on 19 March 2013,
during which it focused on consent to care and treatment. In the report issued
in April 2013, the appellant was found to be compliant.
10. On 15 December 2015, the respondent carried out a comprehensive inspection
according to its revised methodology. The report was published on 10 March
2016. The appellant was found to be in breach of the safe care and treatment
requirement and the good governance requirement. Requirement notices were
issued. A follow up inspection took place on 28 July 2016, which concluded the
To continue reading
Request your trial