The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Uniclinic Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

635B Cranbrook Road, Ilford, Essex, IG2 6SX

Provided and run by:
UniClinic Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

1 May 2019

During a routine inspection

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 Uniclinic Limited. This inspection was undertaken as part of our programme of inspecting independent doctor services registered withthe Commission. This inspection was the first rated inspection of this service.

We conducted an unrated inspection of this provider in February 2018. At this time, we advised the provider that improvements should be made to establish effective systems and processes to ensure continued good governance of the service, with reference to the service developing a fire evacuation plan and to review the arrangements at the service for the provision of registered staff to receive safety alerts from relevant authorities.

Uniclinic Limited is a private doctor’s practice located near Gants Hill, which is within the London Borough of Redbridge. It offers general medical services to the whole community, in particular to those from Eastern European communities such as Lithuanian, Polish and Russian.

The service manager 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.

We received 12 feedback cards during our inspection of the service. On the day of inspection, the service did not have any patients and as a result we did not speak with any patients.

Our key findings were:

  • Staff had been trained with the skills and knowledge to deliver care and treatment. Clinical staff were aware of current evidence-based guidance.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Information about the range of services and fees were available.
  • The service conducted quality improvement activity to improve patient outcomes.
  • There was a system in place to receive safety alerts issued by relevant government departments.
  • The service shared clinical information with colleagues based in the NHS (subject to patient consent).
  • The service had good clean facilities and was equipped to treat patients.
  • The service had an administrative governance structure in place, which was adhered to through a range of policies and procedures which were reviewed regularly

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

7 February 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 7 February 2018 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.

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.

Background

Uniclinic Limited is a private doctor’s practice located near Gants Hill, which is within the London Borough of Redbridge. It offers services to the whole community, in particular those from Eastern European communities such as Lithuanian, Polish and Russian.

The service is situated in a rented single floor building, which has two consultation rooms, a patient waiting area, the service manager’s office and a unisex toilet. There is limited parking outside the service, although there is available parking in the roads nearest to the service.

The service offers general medical services to adults and children, between 9am and 8pm on Mondays to Saturdays. There is one full-time doctor at the service, who is supported by a full-time service manager. There are two assistant managers (one female and one male pharmacist) at the service who work a nominal amount of hours, when requested by the service manager.

The service manager 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.

Uniclinic Limited is registered to conduct the following regulated activities:-

  • Treatment of disease,disorder and injury
  • Diagnostic and screening procedures

Nineteen people provided feedback about the service by completing comments cards. The feedback received was positive about the practice, its staff and the care and treatment received. We also spoke with one patient during our inspection, who also gave positive feedback about the practice.

Our key findings were:

  • Staff had been trained with the skills and knowledge to deliver care and treatment. However, clinical staff were aware not always aware of current evidence based guidance.
  • The service conducted quality improvement activity to improve patient outcomes.
  • Feedback from the CQC patient comment cards and service survey results showed patients were very satisfied with their care.
  • The service shared (where applicable) clinical information with colleagues based in the NHS.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Information about the range of services and fees were available.
  • There was no system in place for the registered manager to receive safety alerts issued by relevant government departments.
  • The service had an administrative governance structure in place, which was adhered to through a range of policies and procedures which were reviewed regularly.
  • The service had good clean facilities and was equipped to treat patients.

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

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure continued good governance of the service, with particular reference to the service developing a fire evacuation plan.
  • Review the arrangements at the service for the provision of all registered staff to receive safety alerts from relevant authorities.

22 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak with people who used the service because there were no patients present at the time of our visit. We did review patient surveys that had been conducted by the service. We saw individual completed questionnaires. People's comments about the service were very positive. Comments included 'most definitely recommend to my family' and 'very satisfied with all services provided'.

We found that appropriate treatment was being provided according to individual assessed need and where appropriate people were referred on to specialist services. Treatment was provided by staff who had received appropriate training and development. We also found that records were accurate and fit for purpose. Treatment was provided in premises that met the needs of the service and were well maintained.