All inspections: 10 St John Street - Care Quality Commission

We carried out a review of the data available to us about 10 St John Street on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about 10 St John Street, you can give feedback on this service.

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 27 March 2018 – not rated)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection 10 St John Street on 28 June 2022. This

inspection was part of the CQC inspection programme to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

10 St John Street provides treatment for men experiencing Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome, erectile dysfunction and prostate health concerns.

The director 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.

Our key findings were:

The provider had good systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the provider learned from them and improved their processes.
The provider reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.
There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety. For example, infection control practices were carried out appropriately and there were regular checks on the environment and on equipment used.
Staff were appropriately trained and experienced to deliver effective care and treatment.
Staff had access to all standard operating procedures and policies.
The location of the service provided appropriate facilities for patients, including disabled access.
There was a clear leadership and staff structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
The provider had a clear vision to provide a safe and high-quality service.
There were clinical governance systems and processes in place to ensure the quality of service provision.
Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Patient feedback highlighted high levels of satisfaction.
Information about the provider and how to raise concerns was available.
There was a strong focus on innovation, continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

We found one area of outstanding practice:

Feedback from patients who use the service was continually positive about the way staff treated them. Patients think that staff go the extra mile and their care and support exceeds their expectations. The service was proactive in collecting the views of its patients. We reviewed recent and historic patient survey information. All patient survey information we reviewed detailed very positive feedback about the care and treatment provided. Patients highlighted that all administrative services had been carried out in a professional, courteous and discreet manner. Consultations were always thorough, and patients commented they were always involved in decisions about their care. Patients said the clinic was very professionally run with everyone being friendly and attentive, and communication was always two way and all questions about administration, care and treatment were answered in detail.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 27 March 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.

The service provides treatment for men experiencing testosterone deficiency syndrome, erectile dysfunction and prostate health concerns.

The service made use of patient feedback as a measure to improve services. They had produced their own survey form and results were analysed on an annual basis. Results obtained from a survey carried out in November 2017 found that 100% of eligible patients said they were able to make an informed decision about the treatment they might receive.

We also received seven Care Quality Commission comment cards. These were very positive regarding the care delivered by the service and mentioned the friendly and caring attitude of staff. Responses stated that the service was professional and easy to access in comfortable hygienic surroundings. In particular, people who had used the service said that they felt listened to, had received thorough support and were treated with dignity.

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.
Assessment and referral processes 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, and staff were able to access relevant training to keep patients safe.
Information for service users was comprehensive and accessible.
Patient outcomes were evaluated, analysed and reviewed as part of quality improvement processes and clinical audit.
We saw evidence that when a complaint was received it was investigated thoroughly and mechanisms were in place to make subsequent improvements to the service based on complaints.
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. Comments and feedback for the clinic showed high satisfaction rates.
Communication between staff was effective with and there was a positive and open culture.

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

Review and improve how clinical treatment pathways could be formally agreed and documented across the clinical team.
Review and improve the implementation plan associated with their most recent clinical audit and consider an ongoing programme of audit activity.

Archived: 10 St John Street

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

28 June 2022

During a routine inspection

27 March 2018

During a routine inspection