Archived: MASTA Travel Clinic Oxford

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of MASTA Travel Clinic Oxford on 1 February 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 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.

Start this section with the following sentence.

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.

This was the first inspection at Masta Travel Clinic Oxford. The service registered to provide regulated activities in February 2018.

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.

As part of our inspection we asked for Care Quality Commission comment cards to be completed by clients prior to our inspection visit. We received nine comment cards, all of which were positive about the standard of care received.

Our key findings were:

• Systems were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse. When mistakes occurred lessons were learned.
• There were effective arrangements in place for the management of vaccines and medicines.
• The service had arrangements in place to respond to medical emergencies.
• Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Client survey information and Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards reviewed indicated that clients were very satisfied with the service they received. Clients commented that they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about the service and how to complain was available.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management and worked very well together as a team. The provider was aware of and complied with the Duty of Candour.
• There was an additional safety mechanism on the service’s computer system which automatically selected appropriate vaccinations and ensured only in date vaccinations were administered and correct serial numbers recorded.
• Learning from serious incidents led to improvement in safety systems.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice