Archived: The Private Clinic Manchester

Updated 21 April 2020

The Private Clinic Limited – Manchester is operated by The Private Clinic of Harley Street Limited. The clinic opened in 2009. It is a private clinic in Manchester. There are a total of eight locations within the group.

At the time of the inspection, a new manager had recently been appointed and was registered with the CQC in May 2019.

The clinic also offers cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and hair restoration. We did not inspect these services as we do not regulate them.

Updated 21 April 2020

The Private Clinic Limited – Manchester (the clinic) is operated by The Private Clinic of Harley Street Limited (the group). The clinic is based in central Manchester and is one of eight locations within the group. Facilities included a clinic room for pre and post-operative consultations, two procedure rooms, a recovery area, a reception and the main office.

The clinic provides cosmetic surgery for adults only. It does not provide services for children.

Procedures are carried out under local anaesthetic rather than general anaesthetic or sedation. All procedures are day cases (there are no overnight beds).

Of the 163 surgical procedures carried out between December 2018 and November 2019, 99 were for the removal of varicose veins, there were 40 vaser liposuction procedures and 24 hair transplants. The clinic also carried out 39 other “minor procedures”.

We only regulate surgical procedures carried out by a healthcare professional for cosmetic purposes, where the procedure involves the use of instruments or equipment which are inserted into the body. We do not regulate – and therefore do not inspect - cosmetic procedures that do not involve cutting or inserting instruments or equipment into the body.

We inspected this clinic using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 11 and 12 March 2020.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this clinic was surgery.

Services we rate

This is the first time we have rated the service. We rated it as Good overall because:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse.

• The service controlled infection risk well.

• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe.

• Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient and removed or minimised risks.

• The service had enough nursing and support staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

• Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment and these were clear, up-to-date, stored securely.

• The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.

• The service managed patient safety incidents well.

• Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment.

• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles.

• Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

• Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment.

• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.

• Staff supported and involved patients, families and carers to understand their condition and make decisions about their care and treatment.

• Staff supported and involved patients, families and carers to understand their condition and make decisions about their care and treatment.

• The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs patients

• The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences.

• People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care promptly.

• It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received.

• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service.

• The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action, developed with all relevant stakeholders.

• Staff felt respected, supported and valued.

• Leaders operated effective governance processes.

• Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively.

• The service collected reliable data and analysed it.

• Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services.

• All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services.

However:

• Staff did not always assess and monitor patients regularly to see if they were in pain.

• The service had not considered using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for all cosmetic service procedures.

• Staff did not always ensure that hazardous substances were always locked away.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the clinic improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North of England)

Updated 21 April 2020

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.