The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Exeter Travel Clinic Also known as The Exeter Travel Clinic

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

22 Southernhay West, Exeter, Devon, EX1 1PR (01392) 430590

Provided and run by:
Exeter Travel Clinic Ltd

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Exeter Travel Clinic on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Exeter Travel Clinic, you can give feedback on this service.

11 June 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Outstanding overall. (Previous inspection November 2017- No rating given)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Outstanding

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Outstanding

Are services well-led? – Outstanding

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Exeter Travel Clinic as part of our inspection programme to ask the service provider the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Exeter Travel Clinic is a fee-paying private travel health clinic located in Exeter city centre. The clinic provides travel health advice and training to individuals, universities, companies and charities. People of all ages intending to travel abroad can seek advice regarding health risks and receive both information and necessary vaccinations and medicines.

The director of the travel clinic 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 obtained feedback through 22 comment cards. These were all positive and contained comments relating to the efficient and excellent service and knowledgeable, friendly and professional staff. There were no negative comments or suggestions. Patient comments included feedback that they had their procedures fully explained beforehand and felt involved in decision making.

Our key findings were:

  • Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.
  • Medicines and emergency equipment were safely managed.
  • The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis only.
  • The practice had facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Assessments of a patient’s treatment plan were thorough and followed national guidance.
  • Patients received full and detailed explanations and costs of any treatment options.
  • The service had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents relating to the safety of patients and staff members.
  • There was an established leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • There were effective governance processes in place.
  • There were processes in place to safeguard patients from abuse.
  • There was an infection prevention and control policy; and procedures were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
  • There were clear systems in place to receive, manage and learn from complaints.
  • The service encouraged and valued feedback from patients and staff.
  • Feedback from patients, stakeholder and healthcare professionals was consistently positive.
  • The provider shared knowledge with the wider community through journals, education, developing education programmes, and editing and writing books.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to implement the revised system to review the dates of the Patient Group Directions.

We saw the following outstanding practice:

The provider demonstrated commitment to system-wide collaboration, communication and education by sharing skills and knowledge with the wider community. There was a strong record of sharing work and knowledge locally, nationally and internationally. For example, being a course director, providing education sessions for local GPs, practice nurses, occupational health staff and private companies and organisations. For example, providing a range of travel medicine study day teaching sessions to regional NHS practice nurses and being a resource and information centre, for local NHS Practice Nurses.

There were clear educational pathways for staff which were usually funded by the organisation. Staff were encouraged, supported and given opportunities to develop. Often this training was over and above what was expected.

There was evidence of ongoing academic study and review with national and international stakeholders and educational establishments. Learning was used to make service improvements. The provider was a noted academic and had participated in editing and publishing articles in national and international journals.

There was a proactive and embedded culture of promptly responding to changes in evidence-based guidance, feedback and being alert and actioning wider learning from national serious incidents. This often included implementing practice significantly earlier than official publication.

For example, the provider reacted promptly to a coroner’s report following fatal adverse reactions to yellow fever vaccines within the UK. This included communicating with pharmaceutical manufacturers highlighting the risks identified through the coroner’s report and updating clinic polices before the UK NICE guidelines were updated.

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

23 November 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The Exeter Travel Clinic on 23 November 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 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.

Background

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 clinic was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Exeter Travel Clinic is a private travel health clinic located in Exeter city centre. The clinic was set up in 2008 as Travel Health Consultancy. In 2016 the business split into two organisations, The Exeter Travel Clinic (CQC registered) and Travel Health Consultancy (Not registrable with CQC). This report relates to the Exeter Travel Clinic. The clinic provides travel health advice, travel and non-travel vaccinations, medicines related to travel and training to individuals, healthcare professionals, universities, companies and charities. People of all ages intending to travel abroad can seek advice regarding health risks and receive both information and necessary vaccinations and medicines.

The provider is a registered nurse who has a degree in emergency care and post-graduate diplomas in travel medicine and tropical nursing, along with a range of outdoor qualifications. The provider is also currently studying an MSc Global and Remote Healthcare. The provider is a Fellow of the Faculty of Travel Medicine (Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow), a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) and a member of the RGS Medical Cell. The provider is also the director of the International Diploma of Expedition and Wilderness Medicine (RCPSG).

The provider employs a team of two registered nurses with travel medicine experience. These nurses work also elsewhere within the NHS. The team of nurses are supported by two part time reception staff and a finance officer.

The provider is the 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 comment cards from patients, healthcare professionals and external stakeholders which were all positive and referred to the person centred, informative, efficient, friendly and professional service. Patients spoke about staff providing simple, informative advice without pushing the services provided. For example, two patients explained how the clinic staff saved them money by referring them to NHS services. Feedback from healthcare professionals referred to the clinic staff as being an effective education resource within the primary care setting. We also saw testimonials provided by patients and healthcare professionals which were also positive.

Our key findings were:

  • Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.
  • Medicines and emergency equipment were safely managed.
  • The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis only.
  • The practice had facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • Assessments of a patient’s treatment plan were thorough and followed national guidance.
  • Patients received full and detailed explanations of any treatment options.
  • The service had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents relating to the safety of patients and staff members.
  • There was a leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • There were effective governance processes in place.
  • There were processes in place to safeguard patients from abuse.
  • There was an infection prevention and control policy; and procedures were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
  • There were clear systems in place to receive, manage and learn from complaints.
  • The service encouraged and valued feedback from patients and staff.
  • Feedback from patients, stakeholder and healthcare professionals was consistently positive.
  • The provider shared knowledge with the wider community through journals, education and editing and writing books.

We saw one area of outstanding practice:

  • The provider shared knowledge with a wider audience and was on the editorial team of the Oxford handbook of expedition and wilderness medicine and expedition Medicine in Auerbach’s Wilderness Medicine. The provider had also written many journal articles, and a 15 credit module for the post graduate diploma module about Expedition Emporiatrics (a branch of medicine that deals with the prevention and management of health problems of international travellers). The provider also supported the development of local practice nurses by providing refresher sessions and shadowing opportunities and also lecturers for the diploma of mountain medicine, the diploma of travel medicine and for the MSc global and remote healthcare.

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

  • Review the timescale and process for informing patients GP when medicines or vaccines are supplied or administered.
  • Review whether a record should be made of a person’s consent to treatment when a medicine is unlicensed or used off-label (Unlicensed medicines’ refers to both medicines with no UK licence, and those being used outside of the terms of their licence (commonly referred to as ‘off-label’).

25 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two members of staff and looked at patient feedback. One patient commented "Excellent service, excellent technique, excellent all round". Another reported "I phoned the clinic for advice only. They were beyond helpful and answered all of my questions". People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding care and treatment.

Staff were well qualified and displayed up-to date knowledge of their specialist field of travel medicine. They maintained clear and accurate treatment records which were kept securely and protected patient confidentiality. Treatment plans were comprehensive, appropriate and tailored to people's individual needs. Patient's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

12 March 2013

During a routine inspection

One person who had used the service told us "I was impressed with the amount of information he was able to give me, once he knew where I was going. It was all very clear and concise." A second person had used the service, together with their partner and family and confirmed that the initial consultation was held with all of them and then family members were able to receive treatment at different times.

During our inspection one person attended for a first appointment and gave us permission to observe the consultation. The Registered Manager (RM) used the information provided to search data-bases on his computer for information and guidance, which was supplemented by his own knowledge and experience.

It was clear from discussion that the RM was in contact with the relevant local agencies and although he had not had concerns about anyone who had used the service experiencing abuse, people who had used the service were protected from the risk of abuse.

All the people who had used the service we spoke with told us that they were confident with the advice and treatment provided by the RM. "The set-up was very professional and he was very knowledgable." one person told us.

Although no negative comments or complaints had been received and no accidents had occurred, it was clear that the RM had systems in place which ensured that people who had used the service were safe and that comments they made assisted in improvements to the service.