Gosforth Private Clinic

Updated 17 February 2022

Gosforth Private Clinic Ltd is registered to provide diagnostic and screening procedures, surgical procedures, and treatment of disease, disorder, and injury. On 30 November 2021, the registered manager applied to remove surgical procedures from their registered regulated activities. This application was under review at the time of our inspection.

The registered manager had been in post since the clinic opened in 2015.

The provider’s statement of purpose dated 06 December 2021, stated regulated activities to be diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder and injury.

Specifically, the service provided cardiology consultations and non-invasive cardiology tests. These included echocardiography, ambulatory heart monitoring and 12-lead electrocardiography.

Patients over the age of 18, could contact the clinic directly to book an appointment or be referred by a GP or another provider.

Following our previous inspection on 14 September 2021, we suspended the provider under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. We took this urgent action as we believed a person would or may be exposed to the risk of harm if we had not done so.

On 15 December 2021, we conducted a focused follow up inspection. This was to determine whether there was enough evidence that the provider had taken appropriate action, to mitigate immediate risks to patients.

Updated 17 February 2022

This is our first inspection of this location. We rated it as inadequate because:

• The provider was unable to provide any policies, procedures, risk assessments or standard operating procedures that they used to make sure patients were safe from the risk of harm.
• There was no policy in place accessible to staff about how to manage deteriorating patients.
• There was no information for staff working at the service about their responsibilities in relation to clinical records.
• There were no clinical records held onsite, the provider was unclear how clinicians documented in and managed clinical records and there was no policy stating how or where clinical records should be stored.
• The provider was unable to assure us that there was a consent policy or that staff followed the correct process to obtain patient consent.
• The provider had no duty of candour policy and was unsure of their full responsibilities in the case of an incident requiring formal duty of candour.
• The provider kept staff files, but these were not all up to date. There was no process in place to assure the provider that staff had an up to date registration, revalidation or performance appraisal nor was there a system in place to check staff working at the service had undergone up to date statutory and mandatory training.
• There was a limited governance processes in place, and this did not include how the provider monitored performance to ensure care and treatment was delivered in line with national guidance or the regulations.
• The provider did not have a safeguarding policy that was accessible to all staff. The safeguarding lead had not undergone the relevant training required to be a safeguarding lead and the staff we spoke with did not fully understand their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding vulnerable adults or children or who they would contact should they have concerns about the safety of a person.
• There was limited evidence of cleaning schedules and when we inspected the clinic rooms, we found some equipment to be visibly dusty. National guidance had not been followed for two procedures carried out in theatre. This increased the infection control risk to patients.

Following this inspection, under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, we suspended the provider in respect to the regulated activities for a limited time to give the provider opportunity to take action to reduce risks to patients. We took this urgent action as we believed a person would or may be exposed to the risk of harm if we had not done so.

However:

• The reception area was visibly clean and tidy.
• The building was easy to access for those with a disability.
• Cleaning equipment and substances hazardous to health were locked away.
• Portable appliance testing (PAT), servicing and calibration, were completed and up to date.
• Social media feedback about Gosforth Private Clinic was predominantly positive and patients felt cared for.

Updated 6 December 2021

We rated it as inadequate because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients however there was a lack of evidence that they had training in key skills, an awareness of safeguarding processes to protect patients from abuse, or managed safety well. The service did not control infection risk.
• There was no evidence staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them or kept good care records. There was no policy to inform staff how and where care records should be kept.
• There was no assurance the service managed medicines well. The service had no process in place to manage safety incidents and learn lessons from them. Staff did not collect safety information or use it to improve the service.
• There was no evidence to show staff provided good care and treatment or gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers did not monitor the effectiveness of the service nor made sure staff were competent. There was no evidence staff supported patients to make decisions about their care. Services were available by appointment only. Staff worked together for the benefit of patients.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of their patients and took account of patients’ individual needs. There was no formal process for people to give feedback. People could only access the service by appointment but did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders did not run services well using reliable information systems. Staff were not supported to develop their skills. There was no written vision, values or strategic plan staff could access or apply to their work. There was no clarity from the provider about staff roles and accountabilities. The service had not engaged with patients to plan and manage services.

We rated this service as inadequate because it was not safe, responsive, or well led. We were unable to rate the key question of caring due to lack of evidence. We inspect but do not rate the key question of effective for diagnostic and screening services.

Updated 6 December 2021

We rated it as inadequate because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients however there was a lack of evidence that they had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, or managed safety well. The service did not control infection risk well.
• There was no evidence staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them or kept good care records. There was no policy to inform staff how and where care records should be kept.
• There was no assurance managed medicines well. The service had no process in place to manage safety incidents and learn lessons from them. Staff did not collect safety information or use it to improve the service.
• There was no evidence to show staff provided good care and treatment or gave them pain relief when they needed it.
• Managers did not monitor the effectiveness of the service nor made sure staff were competent. There was no evidence staff supported patients to make decisions about their care. Staff worked together for the benefit of patients.
• There was no formal process for people to give feedback. People could only access the service by appointment but did not have to wait too long for treatment. The service planned care to meet the needs of their patients and took account of patients’ needs.
• Leaders did not run services well using reliable information systems. Staff were not supported to develop their skills.
• There was no written vision, values or strategic plan staff could access or apply to their work. There was no clarity from the provider about staff roles and accountabilities. The service had not engaged with patients to plan and manage services.

We rated this service as inadequate because it was neither safe, effective, responsive nor well led. We were unable to rate the key question of caring due to lack of evidence.