Archived: Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre

Updated 4 April 2022

Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre provides private fertility treatment for people in central London and the surrounding areas. Most fertility treatments that need to be licensed with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HEFA) do not come within the scope of registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). If a service is registered with CQC and licensed with the HFEA, we will only inspect and rate the parts of the service that are within CQC scope. This does not include treatments to assist conception and those that are licensed by the HFEA.

The service is registered with the CQC for the regulated activities of diagnostic screening procedures, surgical procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The treatments that fall within the scope of practice are hysteroscopy, with or without small cyst aspirations. This is a minimal invasive procedure that uses sound waves (ultrasound) to pinpoint a cyst and guide a thin needle into the cyst to remove fluid. A hysteroscopy is a procedure used to examine the inside of the womb (uterus). It is carried out using a hysteroscope, which is a narrow telescope with a light and camera at the end.

The service is located in a three storey Grade I listed building in a residential area. Facilities include a seated reception area, consulting rooms, ultrasound scanning rooms, an operating theatre and recovery area and administration rooms.

The service is open seven days a week and runs a consultant on-call out-of-hours system for patients.

The service is led by the medical and deputy director and registered manager who was the clinic manager. They were supported by a range of clinical staff including consultants, anaesthetists, embryologists, nurses and a healthcare assistant.

The service was last inspected in 2013 and met the standards required. This is the first inspection under our new rating system.

Updated 4 April 2022

This is the first time we rated this service. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff 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.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Key services were available seven days a week.
• 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 understood their accountabilities and staff were clear about their roles to run the service. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Safeguarding training did not follow professional guidance. At the time of inspection, the registered manager who was the safeguarding lead, did not know how many staff had completed safeguarding training, at what level the training was, and that this training needed to be routinely refreshed.
• We did not receive evidence that incidents and risks were managed at a senior level.
• We did not receive evidence to demonstrate how many staff had completed mandatory training.

Updated 4 April 2022