• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: Yannis Alexandrides - Harley Street

111 Harley Street, London, W1G 6AW (020) 7467 8055

Provided and run by:
111 Harley Street Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

6 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Dr Yannis Alexandrides, trading as 111 Harley Street is a small independent hospital offering cosmetic surgery services to privately funded adult patients at this location since 2001. The hospital was previously inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in November 2013. When the report was published in December 2013 we had concluded the location had met all of the standards inspected.

On this occasion we inspected the hospital on 6 September 2016 as part of our independent hospital inspection programme. The inspection was conducted using the CQC’s comprehensive inspection methodology and was a routine planned inspection. The inspection focussed on the regulated activities of surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. Procedures not currently subject to regulation were not part of the inspection.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspection manager supported by a CQC inspector.

We have not published a rating for this service. CQC does not currently have a legal duty to award ratings for those hospitals that provide solely or mainly cosmetic surgery services.

Are services safe at this service

We found there were systems to report and investigate safety incidents and to learn from these. Risks, including those related to infection prevention control measures, medicines, and equipment were understood and actions were taken to mitigate them. There were sufficient numbers of staff with the necessary skill, qualifications and experience to meet patients’ needs.

The service needed to improve staffs compliance with the completion of the World Health Organisation (WHO) surgical checklist. Additionally, staff safeguarding training required updating.

Are services effective at this service

Care was planned and delivered in accordance with current guidance, best practice and legislation by suitably skilled and competent staff. There was a programme of audit, which was used to assess the effectiveness of services and to maintain standards. Patients’ pain was well controlled, and their nutritional needs were met.

Are services caring at this service

Patients were treated with kindness and respect. Patients gave positive feedback and said they were treated well by staff, and with compassion and dignity.

Are services responsive at this service

Services were planned to meet the needs and choices of patients, and the arrangements for treatment were prompt. There were arrangements to ensure the individual needs of patients were fully considered, assessed and met. Complaints were appropriately acknowledged, investigated and responded to in a timely way.

Are services well led at this service

The service had a well-established leader, who had an excellent working relationship with their staff.

Staff understood what the values and purpose of the service were, and what was expected of them. They were committed to meet the requirements of their patients.

Patents and staff were encouraged to feedback on the quality of services.

The governance arrangements provided assurance of systematic monitoring of the quality of services.

However, although risks were managed, a formal risk register was not in use to capture such information.

Our key findings were as follows:

• There were adequate systems to keep people safe and to learn from adverse events or incidents.

• The environment was visibly clean and well maintained and there were measures to prevent and control the spread of infection.

• There were adequate numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet patients’ needs, and staff had access to training and development, which ensured they were competent to do their jobs.

• There were arrangements to ensure patients had access to suitable refreshments, including drinks.

• Treatment and care was delivered in line with national guidance and the outcomes for patients were good.

• Patient consent for treatment and care met legal requirements and national guidance.

• Patients could access care in a timely way, and had choices regarding their treatment day.

• Staff ensured patients privacy and dignity of patients was upheld.

• The leadership team were visible and appropriate governance arrangements meant the service continually reviewed the quality of services provided.

However, there were also areas of where the provider needs to make improvements. The provider should:

  • Review the arrangements and practices for the completion of the World Health Organisation safer surgery checklist.
  • Provide staff with the correct level of safeguarding training.
  • Consider improving staff knowledge of mental capacity, dementia awareness and deprivation of liberty safeguards.
  • Consider introducing a formal hospital risk register.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals

18 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one patient who told us that they were given adequate information about their care and treatment by staff. The patient said that the staff understood their needs very well and they were treated in privacy and with respect and courtesy by staff who they described as "great." This person told us that staff involved them in making decisions about their treatment.

We looked at the results of the patient survey that was conducted in 2012. All six respondents stated that they were involved in decisions about their treatment, had their views respected and were treated with privacy and dignity. Respondents also stated that they were asked their permission to be examined and felt better able to understand their condition following their consultation with the doctor. In addition, respondents stated that they had confidence in staff who were always able to answer their questions. Respondents said they felt very reassured and one person said: "The follow-up call the day after was appreciated."

People told us they were involved in their care and treatment and we found the consent process was thorough. There were sufficient and suitably experienced staff to meet people's needs. We found the premises were in good order, well maintained and suitable to provide care and treatment.

There was evidence that the complaints were fully investigated and that responses made were appropriate.

4 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one patient who told us that she was given adequate information about her care and treatment by staff. She said that the practice had a website that was available in both English and Chinese, which she found helpful. The patient said she was treated in privacy and with respect and courtesy by staff who she described as "kind and understanding". She told us that staff involved her in making decisions about her treatment, which she described as "very good".

We looked at the results of the patient survey that was conducted in October 2011. All five respondents stated that they were involved in decisions about their treatment, had their views respected and were treated with privacy and dignity. Respondents also stated that they were asked their permission to be examined and felt better able to understand their condition following their consultation with the doctor. In addition, respondents stated that they had confidence in staff who were always able to answer their questions.