The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

The Nottingham Road Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

195 Nottingham Road, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, NG18 4AA (01623) 624137

Provided and run by:
Aligie Limited

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

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

29 November 2022

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

09 and 11 November 2021

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this service went down. We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • Some staff did not have training in key skills. Staff did not always fully assess risks to patients and keep good care records. They did not always manage medicines well. Staff were not all aware of how to make a safeguarding referral. The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and equipment may not always keep people safe. Staff did not use a nationally recognised tool to identify deteriorating patients. Staff did not ensure patients understood the risks associated with their procedures fully. There was a lack of audit and oversight from the service on the completion of the surgical checklist. Records were not always easy to follow. Staff did not store patient images securely. There were medical gases available that staff were not trained to use.
  • Managers did not always monitor the effectiveness of the service or make sure staff were competent.
  • Leaders did not always have the skills and abilities to run the service. Staff were not always clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service did not run as a fully integrated team with silo working in place. The arrangements for governance and performance management across the service did not always operate effectively. There was little understanding or management of risks and issues, and there were shortcomings in performance management and audit systems and processes.

However:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe, provided mandatory training in some key skills, the service-controlled infection risk well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives and supported them to make decisions about their care.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long.
  • Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills.

28 and 29 August 2018

During a routine inspection

The Nottingham Road Clinic is operated by Aligie Ltd. It is located in the town of Mansfield in Nottinghamshire. The premises consist of a large Victorian building which has been converted to provide waiting areas, consultation rooms, treatment rooms and a minor operating theatre. The clinic does not have inpatient beds. The clinic provides a range of services including minor surgical procedures, cosmetic surgery, ultrasound scanning, psychological services and some holistic therapies. We inspected surgery and diagnostic imaging including non invasive pre natal blood testing.

We inspected these services using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced inspection on 28 and 29 August 2018.

To get to the heart of patients' experience of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to peoples needs and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services' performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this clinic was surgery. Where our findings on surgery - for example, management arrangements - also apply to other services, we do not repeat information but cross-refer to the surgery service level.

Services we rate

We rated  surgery and diagnostic imaging services as good overall.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Robust systems and processes were in place to keep people safe.
  • Compliance with mandatory training was 100% for all staff.
  • Staff were aware of their responsibilities around safeguarding children and adults. Chaperones were readily available.
  • Procedures were in place to ensure the environment was clean and hygienic and infection prevention and control measures were adhered to in line with recommended guidance.
  • There was sufficient and appropriate equipment to carry out safe care and treatment. Equipment was serviced regularly.
  • There was robust management of Control of Substances Hazardous to health products and thorough accompanying risk assessments.
  • Robust procedures were in place for assessing and responding to patient risk .
  • There was close support and supervision of patients who were consciously sedated. 
  • Staffing levels were more than adequate with the right number of staff, with the right skills to deliver safe care and treatment.
  • Records were managed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and comprehensive pre and post operative notes were documented in the patients records.
  • Medicines were managed in line with the clinics policy and in line with best practice guidance.
  • Staff knew how to recognise and report incidents. There had been no serious incidents in the reporting period.
  • Quality measures were in place to ensure patients received effective care delivered by competent staff.
  • Policy and procedures reflected national best practice guidance and a programme of local audit was in place.
  • During surgical procedures pain and comfort levels were checked and pain relief given if necessary.
  • Thorough consent processes were in place including explanation of risks and benefits and a two week cooling off period for cosmetic surgery patients.
  • Staff treated patients with care and compassion, privacy and dignity were respected, patients and those close to them felt involved in their care.
  • We observed delightful interactions between staff and patients and feedback from patients was overwhelmingly positive.
  • Services were responsive and flexible to meet the needs of patients and service users.
  • Appointment systems were efficient with minimal waiting times for appointments or treatments.
  • There were low numbers of complaints. Complaints management was thorough and learning was shared with staff and contributed to service developments.
  • There was strong leadership in place, an open and honest culture and effective governance processes.
  • Leaders were visible and approachable with a good understanding of the challenges to the service.
  • There was a clear vision with patients, staff and quality at the heart of it.
  • There was a culture of openness and honesty which we experienced during the inspection.
  • Regular patient engagement took place by patient surveys and questionnaires which were analysed and used to improve services.

However we found the following areas for improvement:

  • Staff had not attended specific detailed training in the Mental Health Act, dementia, learning disability or child exploitation.
  • The safeguarding children policy did not include reference to child exploitation.
  • Some clinic areas were carpeted which meant they could not be cleaned effectively and was not in line with HBN 00-09.
  • Hand hygiene audits were not carried out on consultants with practising privileges.
  • We found two pieces of electrical equipment that did not display a service date.
  • Referral criteria were understood by staff but not formally documented.
  • The clinic did not operate a 24 hour helpline.
  • There was no evidence of a psychological assessment for cosmetic surgery patients.
  • Antibiotic protocols were not in place for prophylactic antibiotics used for cosmetic surgery procedures (liposuction)
  • There was a lack of patient outcome data.
  • There was no formal interpreting service for private patients.
  • Staff had not received training in counselling skills or delivering bad news particularly in relation to the ultrasound service and non invasive pre natal testing for Downs Syndrome.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements even though a regulation had not been breached to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

28 and 29 August 218

During a routine inspection

The Nottingham Road Clinic is operated by Aligie Ltd. It is located in the town of Mansfield in Nottinghamshire. The premises consist of a large Victorian building which has been converted to provide waiting areas, consultation rooms, treatment rooms and a minor operating theatre. The clinic does not have inpatient beds. The clinic provides a range of services including minor surgical procedures, cosmetic surgery, ultrasound scanning, psychological services and some holistic therapies. We inspected surgery and diagnostic imaging including non invasive pre natal blood testing.

We inspected these services using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced inspection on 28 and 29 August 2018.

To get to the heart of patients' experience of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to peoples needs and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services' performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this clinic was surgery. Where our findings on surgery - for example, management arrangements - also apply to other services, we do not repeat information but cross-refer to the surgery service level.

Services we rate

We rated surgery and diagnostic imaging services as good overall.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Robust systems and processes were in place to keep people safe.
  • Compliance with mandatory training was 100% for all staff.
  • Staff were aware of their responsibilities around safeguarding children and adults. Chaperones were readily available.
  • Procedures were in place to ensure the environment was clean and hygienic and infection prevention and control measures were adhered to in line with recommended guidance.
  • There was sufficient and appropriate equipment to carry out safe care and treatment. Equipment was serviced regularly.
  • There was robust management of Control of Substances Hazardous to health products and thorough accompanying risk assessments.
  • Robust procedures were in place for assessing and responding to patient risk.
  • There was close support and supervision of patients who were consciously sedated.
  • Staffing levels were more than adequate with the right number of staff, with the right skills to deliver safe care and treatment.
  • Records were managed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and comprehensive pre and post operative notes were documented in the patients records.
  • Medicines were managed in line with the clinics policy and in line with best practice guidance.
  • Staff knew how to recognise and report incidents. There had been no serious incidents in the reporting period.
  • Quality measures were in place to ensure patients received effective care delivered by competent staff.
  • Policy and procedures reflected national best practice guidance and a programme of local audit was in place.
  • During surgical procedures pain and comfort levels were checked and pain relief given if necessary.
  • Thorough consent processes were in place including explanation of risks and benefits and a two week cooling off period for cosmetic surgery patients.
  • Staff treated patients with care and compassion, privacy and dignity were respected, patients and those close to them felt involved in their care.
  • We observed delightful interactions between staff and patients and feedback from patients was overwhelmingly positive.
  • Services were responsive and flexible to meet the needs of patients and service users.
  • Appointment systems were efficient with minimal waiting times for appointments or treatments.
  • There were low numbers of complaints. Complaints management was thorough and learning wasshared with staff and contributed to service developments.
  • There was strong leadership in place, an open and honest culture and effective governance processes.
  • Leaders were visible and approachable with a good understanding of the challenges to the service.
  • There was a clear vision with patients, staff and quality at the heart of it.
  • There was a culture of openness and honesty which we experienced during the inspection.
  • Regular patient engagement took place by patient surveys and questionnaires which were analysed and used to improve services.

However we found the following areas for improvement:

  • Staff had not attended specific detailed training in the Mental Health Act, dementia, learning disability or child exploitation.
  • The safeguarding children policy did not include reference to child exploitation.
  • Some clinic areas were carpeted which meant they could not be cleaned effectively and was not in line with HBN 00-09.
  • Hand hygiene audits were not carried out on consultants with practising privileges.
  • We found two pieces of electrical equipment that did not display a service date.
  • Referral criteria were understood by staff but not formally documented.
  • The clinic did not operate a 24 hour helpline.
  • There was no evidence of a psychological assessment for cosmetic surgery patients.
  • Antibiotic protocols were not in place for prophylactic antibiotics used for cosmetic surgery procedures (liposuction)
  • There was a lack of patient outcome data.
  • There was no formal interpreting service for private patients.
  • Staff had not received training in counselling skills or delivering bad news particularly in relation to the ultrasound service and non invasive pre natal testing for Downs Syndrome.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements even though a regulation had not been breached to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

11 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with the registered manager and infection control lead during our inspection, and reviewed twenty patient records. We also looked at the cleanliness of the building.

Patient records included details of the batch number and expiry date for any local anaesthetic that was administered. Pre and post-operative observations that were carried out ensured patients were safe to be discharged. Consent to treatment forms were completed and demonstrated that the benefits and risks of the surgery had been explained to patients.

A member of staff had been appointed as the inspection control lead. Cleaning schedules were in place and the building was noticeably cleaner than during our previous inspection.

Systems were in place for the safe ordering and disposal of medication. Medicine keys were stored securely in a key safe, and only clinical staff had access to the code.

Accurate and appropriate records were maintained, and all records were stored securely. Improvements had been made to the standard of record keeping. The policies had been reviewed and updated as required.

27 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with the registered manager, reviewed documents and looked at the storage of medicines in the clinic.

We found that the arrangements for the handling of medicines were not effective to maintain the health and welfare of the people who used the clinic.

14, 17 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two directors, the registered manager, five members of staff, three health care professionals, four patients and one relative. We looked at the care and treatment records of 25 people who used the service. We looked at information received from the provider.

Before receiving any care and treatment people who used the service were asked for their consent.

Everyone we spoke we told us they were happy with the care and treatment they received. One person we spoke with told us, 'Lovely, great, fantastic. Customer care is brilliant. Everything is up to standard. 10/10.'

We found that effective systems were not in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found considerable gaps in the quality of record keeping.

30 November 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with two staff who work at the clinic; the registered manager; a consultant who provided services to patients; and with two patients who used the clinic. We also spoke with an executive director who was visiting on the day of our inspection.

Both of the patients we spoke with told us they were happy with the treatment they received. One patient told us, 'The treatment I have received here has made a significant difference and has had a really positive effect on my life.' Another patient told us, 'The consultant I have been seeing has been great. They go out of their way to make you feel relaxed and comfortable.'

The staff we spoke with said the clinic was good in terms of ensuring that staff training was up-to-date and that they really enjoyed working at the clinic, some of which had worked there for a number of years.

We spoke with one consultant who was available on the day of our visit who told us that before being accepted by the clinic to provide services they had to meet set criteria which included having their own liability insurance, up-to-date General Medical Council registration and an up-to-date annual professional appraisal undertaken by an independent senior doctor in line with The Royal College of General Practitioners guidance.

The executive director we spoke with told us they meet regularly with clinic directors to oversee the operational management of the clinic.