You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Exeter Medical on 9 September 2021. 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 Exeter Medical, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 14 May 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. The service had been inspected previously on 17 July 2018 but had not been rated at that time.

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 of Exeter Medical on 14 May 2019 to ask the service provider the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

During the CQC inspection on 17 July 2018 and recommended the provider should make improvements regarding systems for retention of recruitment records and embedding the nationally recognised Health and Safety Executive environmental assessments. We checked these areas as part of this comprehensive inspection and found both of these issues had been resolved.

Exeter Medical is an independent health organisation providing medical services, minor surgery, advice and treatment and aesthetic cosmetic treatments, to privately funded patients and patients referred by local NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCG). The service is offered on a private, fee paying basis and is accessible to people who chose to use it. Some services are provided on behalf of NHS services. For example, vasectomy and carpal tunnel surgery. The service is part of Ramsay Health Care UK Operations group (Ramsay Health).

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of treatment, advice or surgery by a medical practitioner under the regulated activities of Diagnostic and screening procedures, Surgical procedures and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are not covered under CQC regulations. Therefore, we were only able to inspect and report on the provision of minor surgery, advice and treatment

During our inspection we spoke with three patients and received six CQC comment cards. Feedback about the service was entirely positive. Patients told us they had their procedures fully explained beforehand and felt involved in decision making. Staff were described as patient, kind and considerate. Patients had confidence in the clinicians who provided their treatment.

Our key findings were:

  • There was an effective system for reporting and recording significant events. The service had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents relating to the safety of patients and staff members.

  • Staff had received appropriate training according to their role.
  • The provider had acted upon CQC recommendations arising from the previous inspection. For example, the system for retention of staff recruitment records had been reviewed and was in line with the regulations.
  • The provider had continued to embed nationally recognised Health and Safety Executive environmental assessments at the service.
  • Patient feedback about reception staff and clinical staff was positive. The service encouraged and valued feedback from service users via in-house surveys and their website.
  • Complaints had been dealt with in line with the regulations.
  • Staff told us that their morale was good, that they felt supported by the leadership and involved in decision making at the service.
  • Care and treatment was provided in a modern, clean and well organised environment.
  • Regular team meetings were held and there was an online training system for staff.
  • Procedures were safely managed and there were effective levels of patient support and aftercare advice.

  • There were systems, processes and practices in place to safeguard patients from abuse.
  • Information for service users was comprehensive and accessible. Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.
  • The service had processes in place to securely share relevant information with others such as the patient’s GP, NHS organisations, safeguarding bodies and private healthcare facilities.

We saw the following outstanding practice:

  • The organisation engaged with the local community by providing an annual charity ‘mole check’ event at the service. The event included full mole checks for members of the local community in exchange for a minimum £10 cancer charity donation. The Saturday morning event in June 2018 had seen 130 patients being checked and £2340 being raised. Any abnormal results were processed using the urgent two week wait pathways. This year’s event is planned for 1 June 2019.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Increase the number and range of clinical audits undertaken to enhance quality improvement systems in place.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

Inspection carried out on 17 July 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Exeter Medical on 17 July 2018 to ask the service provider 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 providing safe care in accordance with the relevant

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.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of treatment, advice or surgery by a medical practitioner. The aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the provision of minor surgery, advice and treatment but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

We received nine Care Quality Commission comment cards. These were positive regarding the environment, staff, efficiency of service, care delivered and the caring attitude of the provider. Many stated that the service was professional, and that the staff took the time to explain the process to them. They found the provider professional and would recommend the service to others.

Our key findings were:

  • The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis and was accessible to people who chose to use it. Some services were provided on behalf of NHS services. For example, vasectomy and carpal tunnel surgery.
  • Procedures were safely managed and there were effective levels of patient support and aftercare advice.
  • The service had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents relating to the safety of patients and staff members.
  • There were systems, processes and practices in place to safeguard patients from abuse.
  • Information for service users was comprehensive and accessible. Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.
  • The service had processes in place to securely share relevant information with others such as the patient’s GP, NHS organisations and when required, safeguarding bodies and private healthcare facilities. The service encouraged and valued feedback from service users via in-house surveys and the website.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

  • The organisation engaged with the local community by providing an annual charity ‘mole check’ event at the service. The event included full mole checks for members of the local community in exchange for a minimum £10 cancer charity donation. The Saturday morning event this year had seen 130 patients being checked and £5000 being raised. Any abnormal results were processed using the urgent two week wait pathways.

There were areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Review systems for retention of recruitment records.
  • Continue to embed the nationally recognised Health and Safety Executive environmental assessements