The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: MASTA Travel Clinic - Gatwick Airport

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1-3 Jubilee House, Furlong Way, London Gatwick Airport, Gatwick, West Sussex, RH6 0JW (0113) 238 7559

Provided and run by:
MASTA Limited

All Inspections

25 June 2019 to 25 June 2019

During a routine inspection

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.

MASTA Travel Clinic – Gatwick Airport provides pre-travel health assessments, travel health advice, anti-malarial medicines, travel vaccinations and non-travel vaccinations. The clinic is also a registered yellow fever vaccination centre.

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 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At MASTA Travel Clinic – Gatwick Airport those occupational health related services provided to clients under arrangements made by their employer or a government department are exempt by law from CQC regulation and therefore did not fall into the scope of our inspection.

The travel health nurse advisor based at the location 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 CQC comment cards to be completed by clients prior to our inspection. We received 17 comment cards which were all positive about the service that had been provided.

Our key findings were:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The clinic had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to client safety.

  • Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The clinic proactively sought feedback from staff and clients, which it acted upon.
  • The staff team looked at new ways to engage with the local community and were keen to explore research to improve services for clients.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the current temporary repair to the flooring in the treatment room to ensure a more appropriate permanent solution is found.

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

13 December 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 13 December 2017 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 services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective services 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 services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led services 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.

MASTA Travel Clinic – Gatwick Airport provides pre-travel health assessments, travel health advice, anti-malarial medicines, travel vaccinations and non-travel vaccinations. The clinic is also a registered yellow fever vaccination centre.

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. At MASTA Travel Clinic – Gatwick Airport those occupational health related services provided to customers under arrangements made by their employer or a government department are exempt by law from CQC regulation and therefore did not fall into the scope of our inspection.

The travel health nurse advisor based at the location 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 CQC comment cards to be completed by customers prior to our inspection. We received 16 comment cards which were all positive about the service that had been provided.

Our key findings were:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The clinic had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to customer safety.
  • Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The clinic proactively sought feedback from staff and customers, which it acted upon.

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

  • Review the current system for access to staff recruitment records to ensure they provide all relevant information required by regulation.
  • Review the process for checking sharps containers to ensure they do not exceed the maximum length of time in use without collection.
  • Review the current risk assessment for the provision of emergency medicines to give consideration to the availability of antihistamine and steroid medicines alongside adrenaline for anaphylaxis.

12 November 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out by one inspector. We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We spoke with three people using the service and two staff working in the service. We looked at outcomes relating to respecting and involving people who use the service, care and welfare of people who use services, management of medicines, suitability of staffing and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and staff told us.

Is the service safe?

Individualised treatment plans were developed following a detailed assessment of people's care and treatment needs, with an emphasis on the identification of specific risks to their health and welfare. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We also saw that systems were in place for the recruitment and selection of qualified and skilled staff with appropriate checks in place.

Is the service effective?

The service ensured that the information given to people with regard to vaccinations and travel advice was up to date and relevant. A system of clinical governance included arrangements for supervised practice to ensure that staff were competent. One person told us "Staff have always treated me well. I come here for a medical every couple of years and have had no problems."

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with were positive about the advice they received from staff. We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their treatment options.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's preferences were taken into account when planning their treatment. This included assessing people's needs based on their choices and developing individualised treatment plans to meet those needs. We observed staff advising people on their travel vaccinations and developing a vaccination plan together with the person to ensure the timing of the vaccinations met their needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well managed and there were clear lines of leadership and communication in place. One staff member told us "If there are problems we can share them with the manager. They will always get sorted." We saw a number of feedback processes in place for people and staff to provide feedback on the service and we saw that this feedback was acted on.

30 October 2013

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service about the support and treatment they received. We also spoke with the Registered Manager, Registered Nurse and the administrator about their roles and responsibilities.

People we spoke with told us they were "Happy" with the service. One person said "It's been a very good and efficient service". Another person said "It's all been fine". People told us that the staff had been "Helpful" and provided them with useful information about their travel to help protect them from the risk of diseases.

We looked at the medical records for five people who used the service. We found these included treatment plans and a full medical history that included any known allergies and prior vaccinations.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt "Supported" and received good training opportunities to help them carry out their role effectively and safely. One staff member said "I love working here, we have such a good team" and "We are always encouraged to attend different training to increase our knowledge".

The staff followed good infection control procedures in order to minimise the risk of cross infection and to maintain a clean and hygienic environment for people to receive their treatment.

We found that the service had robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

7 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to three people who used the service and observed one consultation. Everyone we spoke to was complimentary about the service, the advice and care they had received and the knowledge of the staff that advised them. One person told us " My appointment was very professional. I received good information and they were honest about the fact that I did not need a jab. The advice was useful and very reassuring." Another person said "It has all been very good. I got an appointment quickly, everyone has been friendly and they seem very knowledgeable."

People were involved in decisions about their care and received personally tailored health advice and treatment from specialist travel health advisers. Staff were well organised, welcomed people warmly and treated them with courtesy and respect.

The staff within this nurse-led service were appropriately qualified, trained and supervised with ready access to doctor support when required.

We found that the medicines (chiefly vaccines) used within the service were stored and administered responsibly. The provider also had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of its activities, minimise risks and implement improvements.

29 February 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 3 people who use the service. They said there was time for an effective and informative consultation. They received sufficient information to make a choice. People felt the service was flexible, efficient and both the medical and non-clinical staff knowledgeable and caring.