The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: St. Michael's Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

St. Michael's Street, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY1 2HE (01743) 590010

Provided and run by:
Stephen Murdoch

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

16 December 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at St Michael’s Clinic as part of our inspection programme, to provide the service with a rating.

St Michael’s Skin Clinic is based in Shrewsbury, Shropshire and provides a dermatology service to NHS patients within Telford and Wrekin, Shropshire and Powys.

The service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in and of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. St Michael’s Skin Clinic provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example botulinum toxin injections and dermal fillers which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

As a provider of Independent Healthcare, the service is able to offer a private dermatological service to patients within those areas offered to the NHS and beyond those geographical boundaries.

The service is managed from St Michael’s Skin Clinic Shrewsbury, and the directors of the company are Dr Stephen Murdoch and Mrs Alison Murdoch.

Dr Stephen Murdoch 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.

In preparation for the inspection, the service had been sent blank comment cards and a small collection box from CQC. The team had encouraged patients to fill these in and we received a total of 18 completed comment cards which, included patients who had received diagnosis or treatment. All 18 of the cards were positive about the service and care received. Feedback obtained clearly demonstrated positive outcomes for patients. Patients spoke highly of the care and treatment they had received. They described staff as friendly, efficient, helpful and caring. They also commented that their care was better at the service than at any hospital they had been to.

We spoke with two patients during the inspection, both told us that the staff were nice and one of the patients told us they knew what to expect during their ongoing treatment; the other was at the beginning of the consultation process. Staff we spoke with told us they were well supported in their work and were proud to be part of a team which provided a high-quality service.

Our key findings were :

  • Patients received detailed and clear information about their proposed treatment which enabled them to make an informed decision.

  • Patients were offered convenient, timely and flexible appointments.

  • Staff helped patients to be involved in decisions about their care.

  • There were effective procedures in place for monitoring and managing risks to patient and staff safety. For example, there were arrangements to prevent the spread of infection. There were written arrangements in place between the service and the local hospital for transferring the care of patients with a cancer diagnosis. There were written transfer agreements in place should a patient require urgent transfer to hospital.

  • The service had a structured programme of quality improvement activity and routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided.

  • There was effective leadership, management and governance arrangements in place that assured the delivery of high-quality care and treatment.

  • The areas where the provider should make improvements are:
  • Review the Significant Event reporting policy and procedure.
  • Complete root cause analysis and all significant event forms.
  • Further develop the system for managing safety alerts.
  • Formalise the procedure for using and managing contact allergens.
  • Develop a structured audit plan.
  • Review the process for recording complaints.
  • Complete supervision documents.

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

20 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us that the care they received at St Michaels Clinic was very good. People told us it was very "Professional" and 'Caring". One person told us that staff made them feel: "At ease" another that their praise for the service: "Could not be higher". Staff told us they enjoyed their jobs and were supported in their role by caring employers.

The premises were clean and well maintained. There was parking, toilet facilities and good access for people whose disability restricted their mobility.

People told us that they were always asked for their consent prior to any procedure. The balance between risk and benefits was made explicit to people. People received detailed information to enable them to give informed consent. Consent forms were signed, scanned and stored in people's electronic care record.

Care records were clear and concise. The system for recording surgical procedures was detailed and ensured risks relating to surgical procedures were reduced.

St Michaels Clinic had good clinical governance systems and processes. A wide range of audits and clinical observations were undertaken and recommendations acted upon. Staff had good access to a wide range of training appropriate for their role. Research and guidance was used to inform best practice.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

14 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People were extremely complimentary about the care and treatment they had received. They told us their consultation was thorough and they were provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision about the best treatment for them. Comments included, 'My experience has been absolutely fantastic. I felt so confident with them' and 'They are so dedicated at what they do'.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. They said they were well informed about the risks, benefits and any costs for their treatment. They told us they were provided with the opportunity to ask questions during their consultation and given time to think about their options before consenting to their procedure. People said they were 'extremely happy' with their treatment.

The premises were fit for purpose, well maintained and easily accessible. People told us they were 'very impressed' with the environment. They told us it was clean, provided a welcoming atmosphere, was nice and airy and decorated to a high standard.

People considered staff were 'very' competent to safely and effectively carry out their work. Staff received appropriate and continuous professional development to ensure the maintenance and development of their skills and knowledge.

People told us they had never had cause to complain. The said they would feel confident in raising concerns and complaints directly with the staff and considered that they would be listened to.

16 December 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited St Michael's Clinic (part of the Shropshire Skin Clinic) on 16 December 2011. This was the clinic's first review since their registration. We met with staff who worked at the clinic and both partners. We offered people visiting the clinic at the time of our visit the opportunity to speak with us but people preferred not to. We did however have telephone discussions with eight people who had received services in order to gather their views of the service provided.

Everyone we contacted spoke very positively about their experiences. People told us that they had always been made to feel relaxed and comfortable during their visits. One person said that they were, 'really looked after well'.

The service was described by one person as being, 'top notch'.

People told us that they felt safe and confident with the treatments that they received and described the consultant and all of the staff as 'very professional'. Care was described as being very good and people's overall experience was described as 'fantastic'.

People felt involved and consulted in relation to how they received their treatment and we were told that treatment was responsive to people's individual needs. People felt that they had received good written information prior to their sessions that told them all about the treatments that they were to receive. We saw examples of this information during our review. People told us that they were 'well informed'.

People told us that they had received initial assessments that were described as being 'in depth' and 'lengthy'. People were confident that they received the most appropriate treatments for their conditions. The consultant told us that, where agreed with the patients, he contacted the person's GP. People were also very positive about their follow up treatment and after care support.

Everyone we spoke with told us that they had their views and experiences taken into account. Most people had completed a quality assurance questionnaire but everyone considered that their views and wishes had been listened to and acted upon during each and every visit.

The clinic had a number of systems in place to ensure that they monitored and reviewed the quality and safety of the service that they provided. Staff were well trained and well supported to provide 'excellent' care and support.