The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: The Private Clinic Limited - Manchester

25 St John Street, Manchester, Greater Manchester, M3 4DT (0161) 833 9393

Provided and run by:
The Private Clinic Ltd

All Inspections

27 October 2016

During a routine inspection

The Private Clinic - Manchester is operated by The Private Clinic Ltd. The clinic provides cosmetic surgery services for private fee-paying adult patients over the age of 18 years. Patients are admitted for planned day case surgery procedures. The services do not provide overnight accommodation for patients. Facilities include two treatment rooms and two theatres.

The main service provided by the clinic is surgery. We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 27 October 2016.

To get to the heart of patients experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We do not currently have a legal duty to rate cosmetic surgery services or the regulated activities they provide but we highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Patient safety was monitored and incidents were investigated to assist learning and improve care. Patients received care in visibly clean and suitably maintained premises and were supported with the right equipment.
  • Medicines were stored safely and given to patients in a timely manner. Patient records were completed appropriately. The staffing levels and skills mix was sufficient to meet patients needs and staff assessed and responded to patient risks.
  • All staff had completed their mandatory training and annual appraisals. Care and treatment was provided by suitably trained, competent staff that worked well as part of a multidisciplinary team.
  • Patients received care and treatment according to national guidelines such as National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Royal Colleges. Performance data was submitted to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN) in September 2016.
  • We spoke with six patients and they all spoke positively about their care and treatment. Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and patients were kept involved in their care. Patient satisfaction surveys showed patients were positive about the care and treatment they received.
  • There was sufficient capacity and daily planning by staff so patients could be admitted and discharged in a timely manner. There was one case of a cancelled procedure for a non-clinical reason in the last 12 months and this patient was treated within 28 days of the cancellation.
  • Patient consent was obtained prior to commencing treatment. Complaints about the services were resolved in a timely manner and shared with staff to aid learning.
  • The providers purpose statement and objectives had been shared with staff. There was clearly visible leadership within the services. Staff were positive about the culture within the services and the level of support they received. There was routine public and staff engagement.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • The services did not participate in national audit programmes as a way to compare and benchmark patient outcomes, such as performance reported outcomes measures (PROMs). The services planned to participate in the national varicose vein procedure PROMS by March 2017.
  • Completed World Health Organization (WHO) surgical checklist records were reviewed as part of the routine patient record audits. However, there was no specific audit in place to observe staff practice and adherence to the WHO checklist.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve.

Ellen Armistead

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

18, 20 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this follow-up inspection because at the previous visit, on 14 October 2013, we found that the provider needed to make improvements in medication management and record keeping. The provider sent us an improvement action plan on 14 December 2013 detailing the measures they were going to take to meet the required standards and provide a safe service.

The provider was now meeting the medication standard. At the previous inspection visit we found that the provider was not meeting this standard because records about medication were incomplete or inaccurate; medication was not always in a clean hygienic condition or at the correct temperature and was not disposed of appropriately. At this follow-up visit we saw improvements because medication was received, administered, stored and disposed of safely and in keeping with good practice guidance.

The provider was meeting the record keeping standard. Previously we found that the quality of record keeping was inconsistant. This was because some records were incomplete and writing was illegible. Written reports did not always provide detailed information about the advice, care and treatment of the patient prior to and following the procedure. At this follow-up visit we saw that records were easy to read and all the care, support and advice provided to patients was always recorded in full as required.

9, 11, 14 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited The Private Clinic (Manchester), we talked with one person at the clinic, and we also contacted two people by phone. We also considered information sent from a person who had used the service. This person was making a complaint and at the time of this visit their concern was being investigated by the service.

People we talked with told us they were completely satisfied with the way in which the clinic operated. People said they felt they had given informed consent. People also said the care and support during and following a procedure met their needs. We were told: 'I did a lot of research before making my decision so I had a fair idea of what might happen.'

'I never had any concerns and staff are approachable and friendly.'

And: 'If I needed additional surgery I would use it again and recommend it to other people.'

We found that the service met people's needs in relation to the care and support provided during and after procedures completed at the clinic. Systems were in place for dealing with medical emergencies. We found that complaints were acknowledged and dealt with openly. Staff working at The Private Clinic were qualified to carry out the tasks they performed.

We noted that significant improvements were required to make sure medication management was safe. We noted inadequate management of records and record keeping.

11 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We talked with a person attending the clinic for treatment. We were told that it was a pleasure for them to attend the clinic and that they had experienced effective support when they choose and received their treatment.

The regional manager provided assistance and information during the compliance visit and we found that complying with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) outcomes was a major priority for The Private Clinic Limited Manchester and the importance of this was shared with staff.