Archived: Apricity Fertility

This service is rated as Good overall.

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 at Apricity Fertility as part of our inspection programme. The service registered with CQC on 31 October 2019. 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. This is the first inspection of this service following registration with CQC.

Apricity Fertility is a private health clinic in central London which specialises in offering specialist support, guidance and sharing fertility treatment instructions decided by their partner clinics for people who require fertility investigations, treatment and/or support. A complete list of services can be found on the clinic’s website.

This 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 service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Apricity Fertility is registered in respect of the provision of treatment of diseases, disorder or injury. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the clinical consultations, examinations and treatments for those services registered with CQC.

The Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Co-founder 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:

• There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
• Risks to patients were assessed and monitored.
• There was a system in place to receive safety alerts issued by government departments such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
• Staff had the skills, knowledge, and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence-based guidance.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
• The service held a range of policies and procedures which were in place to govern activity; staff were able to access these policies.
• We saw there was leadership within the service and the team worked together in a cohesive, supported, and open manner.
• The service proactively sought feedback from patients, which it acted on.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Ensure clinical staff are trained to the correct level of safeguarding for their role.
• Undertake quality improvement work in the form of full cycle clinical audits to help improve patient outcomes.
• Provide accessible services for patients who are deaf or do not speak English as a first language.
• Restrict access to complaint data within the mobile app to appropriate people to protect patients and staff.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services