The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Clockwork Private Health Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

398-400 Mare Street, Hackney, London, E8 1HP (020) 8985 1635

Provided and run by:
Clockwork Retail 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 Clockwork Private Health Centre 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 Clockwork Private Health Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

16 April 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. The service was previously inspected in February 2018.

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 Clockwork Private Health Centre as part of our ratings inspection programme for Independent Health Providers.

Clockwork Private Health Centre offers private GP consultations to UK residents and people visiting the UK.

Clockwork Retail Limited is an independent provider of medical services situated in Hackney, London. Services are provided from Clockwork Private Health Centre 398-400 Mare Street, Hackney, London E8 1HP. It is registered with the CQC to provide the regulated activities of Diagnostic and screening procedures and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The provider operates from a community pharmacy which provides services which are exempt from regulation by the CQC, as set out in Schedule 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Those services are regulated separately by the General Pharmaceutical Council, therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

Our key findings were:

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • People using the service were able to contact clinicians directly with any concerns or questions following a consultation.
  • The service had a process in place to communicate with a patient’s NHS GP.
  • The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Appointments with the GP were readily available and flexible to meet the needs of the individual patient.

The area where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider putting arrangements in place to audit consultation notes with a view to ensuring consistency in how information is recorded.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

22 February 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 22 February 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and also 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 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.

Our key findings were:

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management.
  • The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Appointments with the GP were readily available and flexible to meet the needs of the individual patient.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Review the availability of local and national prescribing guidelines including those relating to antibiotics.
  • Review the system for recording the sharing of information with patients’ NHS GPs.
  • Review all policies and procedures to specifically reflect the service offered and in particular the medicines policy in relation to monitoring high risk medicines.
  • Review the systems and processes for accessing local treatment guidelines.
  • Review the systems and processes for recording significant events and consider widening the scope of the system to include positive events.

26 November 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Patients we spoke with had positive experiences of using the service and were complimentary about their care and treatment. Patients said they were given good advice about their health condition and treatment. The service was now compliant with one aspect of medicines prescription that was found to be non-compliant at the last inspection. The doctor ensured they received regular training to update their knowledge and skills in clinical practice.

30 April 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak with people using services during the time of our inspection as there were no patient appointments arranged for the period we were at the service.

We found that the service had improved in relation to the standards we reviewed.

People had access to useful information about their care and treatment. People were cared for in clean and tidy premises. Suitable records were maintained in relation to people using services.

We found one patient who was prescribed large quantities of strong pain-relieving medicines who was not appropriately monitored and followed up.