We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 4 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 not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing safe 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.

The service is a private travel clinic located in Manchester.

Our key findings were:

• The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the service learned from them and improved their processes.
• The service had systems to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from abuse.
• The service had arrangements to ensure that facilities and equipment were safe and in good working order. However, the staff and patient toilet area was unhygienic and in a poor state of disrepair.
• The provider carried out recruitment checks, including checks of professional registration where relevant, on recruitment and on an ongoing basis. We found however, that Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were not undertaken where required for all staff members prior to employment.
• Overall, the provider ensured that facilities and equipment were safe and that equipment was maintained according to manufacturers’ instructions. However, calibration of equipment such as blood pressure monitoring equipment had not been completed.
• The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
• Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they could access care when they needed it.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
• Staff worked well together as a team, knew their patients well and all felt supported to carry out their roles.
• The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples of how they had responded to events showed the practice complied with these requirements.
• The service sought feedback from patients.
• There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement.

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

• Ensure all premises and equipment used by the service provider are fit for use.

• 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.