We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of the Thornley House Medical Centre (also known as Manchester Circumcision Clinic) on 8 April 2018 to ask the service provider 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 announced 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.

Thornley House Medical Centre (also known as Manchester Circumcision Clinic) is an independent circumcision service that provides circumcisions for patients from infancy through to adulthood for cultural and religious reasons under local anaesthetic. The service also provides post procedural reviews of patients who have undergone circumcision.

We received 49 Care Quality Commission comment cards. These were positive regarding the care delivered by the clinic and the caring attitude of staff. Many stated that the service was professional, and that staff took the time to explain the process to them. They found staff helpful and would recommend the service to others.

Our key findings were:

• The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis only and was accessible to people who chose to use it.
• Circumcision procedures were safely managed and there were effective levels of patient support and aftercare.
• The service had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents relating to the safety of patients and staff members.
• There were systems, processes and practices in place to safeguard patients from abuse.
• Information for service users was comprehensive and accessible.
• Patient outcomes were evaluated, analysed and reviewed as part of quality improvement processes.
• Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.
• The clinic shared relevant information with others such as the patient’s GP and when required, safeguarding bodies.
• There was a clear leadership structure, with governance frameworks which supported the delivery of quality care.
• The service encouraged and valued feedback from service users via in-house surveys and the website.
• Communication between staff was effective.

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

• Review and improve the process for checks to establish if children are known to be on the safeguarding register during the consent procedure.
• Review and improve the recording of who is present during the procedure, for instances where parents do not want to witness the procedure taking place and appoint a family member to do this on their behalf.