We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 20 September 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.

Harley Street Medical Doctors is a private clinic that specialises in slimming and aesthetic treatments and hormone therapy.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner, including the prescribing of medicines for the purposes of weight reduction. At Harley Street Medical Doctors, the aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the treatment for weight reduction but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

Dr Chia Tsyh Tan 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.

We received feedback from 32 people about the service, including comment cards, all of which were very positive about the service and indicated that clients were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were described as helpful, caring, thorough and professional.

Our key findings were:

• The facilities were appropriate to meet people’s needs
• Medicines were used safely and appropriately
• There was an annual audit of patient records to support safe prescribing
• Staff were caring, supportive, and treated patients with dignity and respect
• The manager encouraged an open and honest culture, and staff we spoke with were aware of the vision for the service
• There was a comprehensive set of policies and procedures governing all activities
• There was evidence of quality improvement.
• 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 service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
• There was a complaints procedure in place and information on how to complain was readily available.

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

• Review the use of unlicensed medicines (used for the valid special clinical needs of an individual patient), to ensure they are used only where there is no suitable licensed medicine available.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice