• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

City

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Lower Ground Floor, 65 London Wall, London, EC2M 5TU (020) 8888 1405

Provided and run by:
Nomad Health Technologies Ltd

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

All Inspections

21 July 2021

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Requires improvement overall. (Previous inspection March 2019 – unrated.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires improvement

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Requires improvement

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at City both as part of our inspection programme to rate all providers of independent health services and because the provider was found to be in breach of regulation at our previous inspection undertaken on 12 March 2019.

At our previous inspection in March 2019 we identified the following concerns:

  • The provider had not undertaken a comprehensive infection prevention and control audit.
  • The provider had not risk assessed on how they would manage patients with severe infections, for example sepsis.
  • The provider did not have a defibrillator and emergency medicines to deal with a range of medical emergencies.
  • The provider did not have a clear system in place to manage referrals.
  • The medicines management policy was not clear about the scope of medicines that could be prescribed by the doctors.
  • The provider did not have a clear system in place for authorisation of patient specific directions for administering unlicensed vaccines.
  • The provider did not ensure that doctors were up to date with evidence-based guidance.
  • The provider had not risk assessed the treatments they offered.
  • The provider did not undertake any clinical audits.
  • The provider did not ensure staff complete training relevant to their role.

As a result of these concerns we issued requirement notices in respect of breaches of regulation 12 (safe care and treatment) and regulation 17 (good governance).

The service provides comprehensive travel health services in addition to other services which are out of scope of CQC regulation. For instance, the service offers covid 19 testing including fitness to fly, test to release and two- and eight-day testing for arrivals to the UK. The service also has an on-site pharmacy which is also not covered by CQC regulation.

Frances Rea is the CQC 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 taken action to assess and mitigate risks associated with infection control. One member of staff we spoke with did not know the lead for infection control audit.
  • The service had guidance available to staff for responding to infections including sepsis and some staff had completed sepsis training.
  • The provider did not have all recommended emergency medicines. The service had undertaken a generalised risk assessment regarding the need for emergency medicines generally but there had not been consideration of the need for individual medicines. Records we reviewed showed that the provider was providing treatment in line with relevant guidelines though we found that their screening assessment template did not prompt clinicians to fully record their assessment.
  • The provider had a system in place to monitor referrals to other services although they told us they had not undertaken any referrals in the past 12 months.
  • There was a still a lack of clarity in the provider’s medicines management policy regarding the medicines that could be prescribed. However, a revised policy was submitted after our inspection.
  • The service now had access to translation services but no hearing loop for those who had impaired hearing.
  • The provider had not prescribed any medicine off license since March 2021.
  • Clinical staff had undertaken appropriate clinical updates.
  • The provider had completed a quality improvement activity but had not undertaken a clinical audit and had stopped collecting feedback from patients via comment cards and client surveys; though we were told that the service reviewed feedback provided on the internet and that verbal feedback provided by patients was positive

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Have all staff complete training on information governance and sepsis.
  • Make all staff aware of the lead for infection control.
  • Undertake two cycle clinical audits.
  • Consider using a hearing loop to support those patients with hearing difficulties.
  • Review safety risks in the service’s storage room.

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

12 March 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 12 March 2019 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 not 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 not 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 provider offers face to face consultations for immunisations including childhood, travel vaccinations and travel medical advice, and screening services for medical clearance and post-travel consultations.

We received feedback from seventeen patients who used the service which were wholly positive about the service experienced. Many patients reported that the service provided high quality care.

The lead nurse 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 service had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen.
  • The service reviewed the appropriateness of the care it provided. However, it did not always ensure that care and treatment is delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Services were provided mostly met the needs of patients.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.
  • Responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support governance and management required improvement.

There areas the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way for patients.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

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

  • Review systems in place to assure that an adult accompanying a child had parental authority.
  • Review the policy to identify and verify a patient’s identity prior to consultation.
  • Review service procedures to ensure staff receive training appropriate to their role.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care