The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Trailfinders Travel Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

194 Kensington High Street, Kensington, London, W8 7RG (020) 7938 3837

Provided and run by:
Trailfinders Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Trailfinders 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 Trailfinders Travel Clinic, you can give feedback on this service.

20 April 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 8 January 2019 – The service was not rated but was complaint with the relevant regulations).

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? – Outstanding

We carried out this inspection as part of our comprehensive inspection programme of independent health providers. The service is a private travel clinic located on Kensington High Street, London.

Our key findings were:

  • The clinical staff leadership team were outstanding; staff had worked diligently and consistently since at least 2012 to drive positive, leading edge, and at scale improvements in the travel health sector.
  • The service assessed patient need and delivered care in line with current legislation, and reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided.
  • Clinical and non-clinical staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective travel health services.
  • The service had systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety and there were reliable systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines.
  • The service organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs and made changes as a result of incidents and patient feedback.
  • The service treated patients with kindness, respect and dignity, and patient feedback was positive about the service.
  • There was a clear leadership structure in place and staff felt supported by management.
  • The service had effective oversight of the clinical care provided to patients.
  • The service had a governance framework in place which supported the delivery of quality care. The service operated effective processes for identifying and managing issues and risks and improving performance.
  • Without exception, staff described a working culture where they were supported to deliver excellence for patients using its services. Staff across all roles provided us with examples of their feedback to management that was utilised to continuously improve service delivery.

We saw the following examples of outstanding practice:

  • Clinical staff worked passionately on their own resource and initiative and were also supported by the provider to facilitate improvements in travel health locally, nationally and at a global level. Examples include, authoring and reviewing best practice guidelines for the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), reporting to the UK government on protecting the health of travellers, undertaking research on the Ebola Virus in collaboration with global partners; and educating across a wide range of audiences and settings in the private and public sector such as the NHS, Universities, at National and International Conferences, and for an organisation set up to protect global workforces from health and security threats.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and evaluate recent improvements to assure that an adult accompanying a child has parental authority.
  • Undertake a risk assessment to determine an appropriate duration between clinical staff enhanced DBS checks.

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

8 January 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Trailfinders Travel Clinic on 3 July 2018. The practice was found to be not to be providing safe care under regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Safe Care and Treatment. We issued a requirement notice for breaches of this regulation related to failure to adequately assess and mitigate risks associated with fire, legionella, substances hazardous to health and infection control.

Consequently, we carried out an announced focused inspection on 8 January 2019. 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 to check whether service was now fully meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Specifically, we assessed whether or not the provider had taken action to address the breaches of regulation and to determine if the provider was complaint in respect of the key question: Are services safe?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was now providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Our key findings were:

  • The service had completed a fire risk assessment and had complied with most of the recommendations although testing of the fire alarm was done quarterly and not weekly as recommended in the risk assessment.
  • The service had completed a legionella risk assessment but had yet to fully implement all of the recommendations including regular flushing of rarely used water outlets.
  • The service had updated data sheets for hazardous substances kept on the premises and there was now a COSHH policy and COSHH risk assessment.
  • Staff had received fire safety and infection control training.
  • An infection control audit had been completed.

We also identified other issues at our last inspection which did not amount to breaches of regulation but where we recommended that the provider should take action. We found that the service had implemented most of these recommendations. For example:

  • The service had undertaken an audit of the quality of clinical staff record keeping which included assessing whether or not consent was documented in the patient’s notes. A re audit was planned for later in 2019.
  • We recommended that a formalised induction process be introduced for clinical staff. We were told that there was an informal induction of these staff members and that the service had yet to put a formal documented system in place as there had been no new clinicians that had been recruited since our last inspection. A structured documented induction was in place for non-clinical staff.
  • The service had not made any changes to their business continuity plan as recommended at the last inspection. The plan still referred to a limited number of scenarios where alternative arrangements would need to be put in place to ensure the service continued to function. However, we asked staff at the service to outline what they would do in the event of a scenario not included within the policy and staff were able to provide a clear account of the action that would be taken to ensure the service continued.
  • At the last inspection we recommended the service review systems for checking patient identity prior to treatment and sharing details of patient treatment with a patient’s GP. The service informed us that they did not routinely ask for identification unless the patient was a child. In these circumstances the identity of the attending adult would be verified to ensure that appropriate consent to treatment was obtained before treatment. We saw instances where the service would share details of treatment with a patient’s GP if they deemed this to be clinically necessary or relevant; for instance, if the patient had an underlying health condition which could be impacted by the treatment given at the service. All other patients were provided with a record of the treatment received which could be shared with their GP.
  • The service had drafted a whistleblowing policy since our last inspection as recommended.

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

  • Review induction process for clinical staff with a view to implementing formal recording systems.
  • Review business continuity plans.
  • Review recommendations from the legionella and fire risk assessment to ensure all recommendations are implemented or non implementation justified.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

3 July 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Trailfinders Travel Clinic on 3 July 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 not 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.

Trailfinders Travel Clinic provides private travel health services including travel immunisations in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in London. Services are provided to both adults and children. This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by a medical practitioner, including the prescribing of medicines.

We received feedback from 44 people about the service, including comment cards, all of which were positive about the service and indicated that patients were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were described as empathetic, caring, thorough and professional.

Our key findings were:

  • There were arrangements in place to keep patients safeguarded from abuse.
  • Some health and safety and premises risks had not been assessed and managed effectively.
  • The premises were clean and hygienic; however infection control systems were not appropriately monitored.
  • There were safe systems for the management of medicines.
  • Staff knew how to deal with medical emergencies. Appropriate medicines and equipment were available.
  • The service had systems for recording, acting on and improving when things went wrong.
  • Travel health assessments and treatments were carried out in line with relevant and current evidence based guidance and standards.
  • There was evidence of some quality improvement measures.
  • Staff had the specialist skills and knowledge to deliver the service.
  • Staff treated patients with kindness, respect, dignity and professionalism.
  • The appointment system was flexible and patients were able to access appointments when they needed them.
  • The service had a clear procedure for managing complaints. They took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.
  • The leaders had the skills and capacity to deliver the service and provide high quality care.
  • Staff stated they felt respected, supported and valued. They were proud to work in the service.
  • There were clear governance arrangements for the running of the service, however some systems to assess risk were not in place.
  • The provider was aware of and had systems to ensure compliance with the requirements of the duty of candour.
  • The service asked staff and patients for feedback about the services they provided.
  • There was evidence that the service had contributed to external publications within the field of travel health.

Notable practice:

  • Two clinical staff were fellows and one clinical staff was a member of the Faculty of Travel Medicine, part of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow. There was evidence that one of the doctors and the lead nurse were involved in setting examination questions for the Faculty of Travel Medicine.
  • The lead nurse, lead doctor and a second nurse had been directly involved with contributing to the Royal College of Nursing, Female Genital Mutilation guidance for travel health services which was published in 2016.

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

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

  • Monitor the systems for obtaining, recording and auditing consent for care and treatment provided.
  • Review and improve the use of induction checklists to ensure an effective induction process for staff.
  • Review and improve the business continuity plan for the service.
  • Review and improve the systems for communicating with a patient’s GP and verifying a patient’s identity.
  • Review the provision of a whistleblowing policy for staff.

4 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one person who used the service and looked at the results of numerous feedback surveys from 2012. People were satisfied with the care and treatment received. They felt that the procedures had been explained well and found the written information provided comprehensive. Consent had been obtained by the most appropriate person.

Care was planned in a way to ensure people's safety. People were assessed by the doctor to determine whether the requested vaccination or medication would be suitable. People were given advice and information. There were procedures in place to deal with medical emergencies.

The clinic was clean and well maintained. There were systems in place to reduce the risk of infection, including a policy on infection control.

There was a complaints policy in place and people were given information on how to make a complaint. The person we spoke with and the results from feedback forms were complimentary about staff.