• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

92 Harley Street

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

92 Harley Street, London, W1G 7HU (020) 7034 1300

Provided and run by:
IVF Hammersmith 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 92 Harley Street 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 92 Harley Street, you can give feedback on this service.

20 December 2022

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 92 Harley Street as part of our inspection programme as they had not been previously inspected.

92 Harley Street is an independent healthcare provider offering fertility, gynaecology and obstetrics services to fee-paying patients.

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. The service does not currently have a registered manager as the person occupying the role has left the service. The practice manager has submitted an application to CQC to take on the role of registered manager. The application is awaiting processing.

Our key findings were:

  • The service provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Clinicians and staff dealt with patients with kindness and respect and were committed to involving people in decisions about their care.
  • The service adjusted how it delivered services to meet the needs of patients.
  • The way the service was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person centred care.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

23 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We were unable to talk to people at the practice as there were no appointments booked. We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by reviewing the satisfaction questionnaires returned to the service between March 2012 to July 2013. We found that people who had used the service said that they were given information about their care and treatment before they underwent procedures. They said that staff were "very professional".

Appropriate medical checks were undertaken before people received treatment including information on any medications they were taking.

People who use the service were given sufficient information and were involved in making decisions about their care. People who use the service reported that the doctors had understood them and that they understood their proposed treatment.

The environment was comfortable and maintained appropriately to ensure it was safe for people using the service and staff.

Staff received adequate training and supervision. All staff had an annual appraisal that included looking at the aims and objectives of the service. The doctors received annual appraisals through the Independent Doctors Foundation.

The service conducted audits to monitor the quality of the service it was providing. Regular patient feedback questionnaires were completed.

There was a complaints procedure in place that was available to people. We saw the complaints procedure in the waiting room and on the provider's web site.

5 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We haven't been able to speak to people using the service because there were no appointments made for patients on the day we visited. We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by reviewing the quality assurance audit of questionnaires completed by patients from September 2011 to September 2012. We found that the overall response from patients ranged from good to very good. Comments included "very happy with the way we have been treated at the clinic" and "the information I was given by staff was very clear".