The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Cranley Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

106 Harley Street, London, W1G 7JE (020) 7499 3223

Provided and run by:
Cranley Clinic Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile
Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Cranley Clinic. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

22 November 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff, with appropriate training in key skills, to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had 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.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions.
  • The service planned care to take account of patient's individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback.
  • Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care.

However:

  • The emergency response kits were not standardised, and not all staff were aware of its content.
  • The service did not carry out radiography audits six-monthly in line with current guidance.
  • There was no central log of external referrals made to ensure traceability, follow-up, and the best patient outcomes were achieved.
  • The service did not have an overarching action log, for accountability purposes, to keep track of all actions recommended by internal audits and other quality monitoring tools.
  • Although the service developed many new procedures and policies not all of them were fully comprehensive.
  • The service continued to develop its leadership and clinical leadership structures. It was still too early to judge if the changes implemented were sustainable and fully embedded.

13 June 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

As this was a follow up inspection, we did not rate the service:

  • The service had implemented new infection prevention and control audit and monitoring tools and practices.
  • The service had secured more emergency equipment and improved signage and access.
  • Fire safety practices in the building had improved.
  • The service was in the process of restructuring its leadership team to ensure the right people were in place to lead safe care.
  • Governance processes, including the use of appropriate policies and standard operating procedures, were subject to a new system of review and implementation.

However:

  • While monitoring of infection prevention and control processes had improved, not all areas of the building were visibly clean.
  • Pain relief medicine in the emergency kit had expired.
  • Antimicrobial prescribing guidance was generic and did not reflect national best practice.

21 March 2022, 22 March 2022

During a routine inspection

We have not previously rated this service. We rated it as inadequate because:

  • The service could not provide evidence staff had sufficient training in key skills, including safeguarding. There was limited evidence the service controlled infection risks and record keeping was insufficient. There was poor management of medicines. There was no audit trail of incidents, lessons learned, or acted on national safety alerts.
  • The service did not monitor the effectiveness of care and did not have a system to provide assurance of staff competence. There was no monitoring system for pain relief and evidence of multidisciplinary working was very limited.
  • Service planning was sporadic and there were no formal adaptations to facilitate access for patients with reduced mobility, cognitive needs, or language needs.
  • The overarching governance system was not fit for purpose. Policies were wholly inappropriate for the care provided and the senior team did not have a grasp of the risks and performance issues in the clinic.
  • There was no vision or strategy and staff were unable to clearly describe their roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities.

However:

  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions.
  • People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Following the inspection, we took immediate action to suspend all regulatory activity at the provider for three months. In addition, we placed the provider in Special Measures.

Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate overall or for any key question or core service, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. The service will be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement, we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.