Panacea

Updated 16 January 2020

Panacea Medical Centre is operated by Stereopsis Limited. The centre opened in 2015. It is a private centre in Worthing, West Sussex. The centre primarily serves the communities of West Sussex. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area.

The registered manager left the organisation at the end of October 2019. At the time of the inspection, the acting manager who was the lead ophthalmic surgeon had started the application process to become the registered manager.

Panacea Medical Centre registered with the CQC in 2015. The service has not been inspection before.

We carried out an announced inspection on 12 November 2019.

The centre also offers minor cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and Botulinum toxin injections and photobiomodulation (low level laser) cosmetic treatment. We did not inspect these services.

Updated 16 January 2020

Panacea is a private medical centre and a centre for eye care based in Worthing West Sussex. It opened on January 2015 and is situated in an old church. During this inspection we only inspected the eye care service. Rooms within the centre are rented out but activity undertaken is not within the scope of registration with the CQC. This was the first time the service had been inspected.

Panacea Medical Centre is owned by Stereopsis Limited. The centre is set over two-floors and facilities include two operating theatres, clinic rooms and a minor procedure room.

Services provided include, cataract surgery, glaucoma treatment, retinal and eyelid surgery as day case under either topical anaesthetic eye drops or local anaesthetic injection. Ophthalmic (eye) surgery is performed by two consultant ophthalmic surgeons on Tuesday mornings and Thursday afternoons.

The service provides care and treatment for adults only.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We have reported our inspection findings in the core service of surgery. We carried out an announced inspection on 12 November 2019.

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.

There were no special reviews or investigations of the service ongoing by the CQC at any time during the 12 months before this inspection.

Services we rate

This was the first inspection of the service. We rated the centre as Good overall. This was because:

The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.

Staff provided good care and treatment. The service leader monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients.

The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. Staff managed clinical waste well.

The service collected reliable data and analysed it. The information systems were integrated and secure.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needed to improve:

One staff’s file did not include two written references in line with the provider’s policy.

The resuscitation trolleys contained equipment and medicines that staff were not trained to use.

The provider’s statement of purpose did not accurately reflect the current activity undertaken.

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

Name of signatory

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)

Updated 16 January 2020

Are services safe?

This was the first time the service had been inspected so not previously rated.

We rated it as Good because:

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

The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it. The service ensured that bank staff completed mandatory training and regularly reviewed it was up-to-date.

Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities with regard to the protection of people in vulnerable circumstances. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

The service-controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and controlled measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They kept equipment and the premises visibly clean. There were no infections reported.

Patients were cared for in a modern environment that was well maintained.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

The resuscitation trolleys contained equipment and medicines that staff were not trained to use.

The provider should ensure the recruitment process of staff is undertaken in line with their own policies.

Are services effective?

This was the first time the service had been inspected so not previously rated.

We rated it as Good because:

The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. Patient outcomes exceeded national survey results.

Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment. There were formal systems for collecting comparative data regarding patient outcomes.

The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. However, staff were not trained to use the equipment on the resuscitation trolleys. Staff had completed annual appraisals. The manager oversaw staff competencies to ensure that staff remained competent to perform their role.

All staff worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care.

Are services caring?

This was the first time the service had been inspected so not previously rated.

We rated it as Good because:

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. There was a visible patient-centred culture. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted patients' dignity.

Patients commented positively about the care provided from all staff they interacted with and staff demonstrated commitment to continuous improvement.

Staff provided emotional support to patients. Patients felt well informed and involved in their procedures and care, including their care after discharge.

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

Are services responsive?

This was the first time the service had been inspected so not previously rated.

We rated it as Good because:

The service was inclusive and took account of patient’s individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services such as local opticians.

People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care promptly. Waiting times, delays and cancellations were minimal and well managed.

It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learning with all staff. The service included patients in the investigation of their complaint.

The building had been purpose built to meet the needs of the patients, including those with mobility problems.

Are services well-led?

This was the first time the service had been inspected so not previously rated.

We rated it as Good because:

The provider had a clear vision and strategy for the service, staff were aware of it and it was displayed for patients to read to inform patients.

The service collected reliable data and analysed it. The information systems were integrated and secure. Data or notifications were consistently submitted to external organisations as required.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and staff could raise concerns without fear.

The service operated effective governance and risk management processes. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities and had regular opportunities to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of the service.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

One staff file did not include two written references in line with the provider’s recruitment policy.

The providers statement of purpose did not accurately reflect the current activity undertaken.