The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Wellman Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

32 Weymouth Street, London, W1G 7BU (020) 7637 2018

Provided and run by:
The Wellman Medical Centre LLP

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

14 November 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection May 2018 - unrated)

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 The Wellman Clinic as part of our inspection programme.

At the previous inspection in May 2018 the location was unrated, which was in line with our inspection methodology at that time. At that inspection we found the provider was delivering effective, caring, responsive care and was well-led. However we also found safety concerns, specifically around emergency equipment, medicines management, management of safety alerts and infection prevention and control. At this inspection in November 2022 we found these concerns had been resolved. However we have told the provider they should make improvements around prescribing and quality improvement.

Wellman Clinic is an independent medical service which specialises in men’s health and wellbeing; including health screening for cancer and mental health conditions, hormone replacement therapy and the treatment of sexual health conditions.

At this inspection we found:

  • The service was providing safe care and there were measure in place to manage risks. However we found the provider was not carrying our prescribing audits.
  • The service was providing effective care. The effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided was reviewed. There was some evidence of quality improvement activity, however we have told the provider they should make some improvements to these processes.
  • The service was providing caring services. Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Feedback from people who used the service was positive.
  • The service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations. People were supported to access the service when they wanted to. There were systems and processes in place to manage feedback.
  • The service was providing well-led care. Leaders have the capacity and skills to deliver high-quality, sustainable care. They demonstrated a vision to deliver high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients.

Whilst we did not find any breaches of the regulations, the areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Carry out regular prescribing audits to ensure prescribing is in line with best practice guidelines for safe prescribing.
  • Devise a programme of systematic and coordinated quality improvement activity.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

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

10/05/2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 10 May 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.

Prior to our inspection patients completed CQC comment cards telling us about their experiences of using the service. Thirty-three people provided wholly positive feedback about the service.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen; however, these systems were not always effective, including providing appropriate emergency equipment, managing medicines safely, receiving and acting on safety alerts about medicines and equipment, and addressing infection prevention and control risks.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided and it ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines; however, the service did not have a quality improvement programme in place.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Services were provided to meet the needs of patients.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered was consistently positive.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

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

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

We identified areas where the service could improve and should:

  • Review training requirements for staff including the provision of information governance training and formal training for chaperones.
  • Review medical indemnity arrangements for clinicians and clinicians’ assistants.
  • Review the provision of services and facilities for service users requiring additional access such as wheelchair users.
  • Consider business continuity arrangements in response to a major incident.
  • Review and improve the service’s quality improvement activity, developing a quality improvement programme.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

17 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak to people who use services on this occasion as there were no appointments made at the time of this inspection. Evidence from the clinic's quality assurance audits carried out between December 2011 and November 2012 and written feedback from patients showed that people were happy with the treatment received and the aftercare and support provided.