Archived: The Centre for Men's Health

Updated 19 April 2018

The Centre for Men’s Health is an independent service provider which is registered in London, and operates from locations in London and Manchester. This report is based on findings from the London location which is located within 96 Harley Street, London, W1G 7HY. The service provides treatment for men experiencing Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome, erectile dysfunction and prostate health concerns.

The provider operates from premises which are easily accessible for those using public transport and on street parking is available. The premises are equipped with aids for disabled access if required (such as a portable ramp) and occupies rooms on the ground floor. The Centre for Men’s Health leases a treatment room and an adjoining office. The waiting room and toilets are shared with other providers.

The service is owned by three shareholders. Of these, one is a sole director. The director works as the practice and business manager and is the Registered Manager for the provider. Care is delivered by three clinicians (all male). These clinicians are all trained and experienced in this area of medicine. The provider also employs a small administrative team that provides reception and booking support for patients. The London based service usually provides two to four clinical sessions per week, seeing up to 100 patients each month.

The inspection was led by a CQC inspector who was accompanied by a GP specialist advisor.

Before visiting, we reviewed a range of information we hold about the service and asked other organisations to share what they knew. Stakeholders we contacted did not raise any information of concern with us.

During our visit we spoke with staff and reviewed CQC comment cards where patients and members of the public shared their views. We also observed how patients were treated in the reception area and reviewed key documents which supported the delivery of the service.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?
• Is it effective?
• Is it caring?
• Is it responsive to people’s needs?
• Is it well-led?

These questions therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 19 April 2018

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 22 February 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 review in November 2016 found that 100% of eligible patients said they were able to make an informed decision about the treatment they might receive.

We also received 41 Care Quality Commission comment cards from users of the service. These were very positive regarding the care delivered and mentioned the friendly and caring attitude of staff. Responses stated that the service was professional, thorough and easy to access. People also told us they found the premises hygienic and that they 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 how clinical treatment pathways could be formally agreed and documented across the clinical team.
• Review the implementation plan associated with their most recent clinical audit and consider an ongoing programme of audit activity.