The Whiteley Clinic London

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement that was based on meeting the needs of patient who used services and wider communities. We checked that leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, integrated, person-centred and sustainable, and to reduce inequalities.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has gone down to good. This meant patients’ needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of patient and their communities.

The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve. This vision reflected the overarching provider aims and objectives, which was to provide high quality care for patients with varicose veins and venous disease. The service aimed to achieve this by researching and offering the latest techniques that were proven to work within venous disease, whilst providing the services in a safe and comforting environment. Staff that we spoke with understood and shared this vision.

At the time of our assessment, the service was in the process of updating their strategy and they planned to update staff in time for the next academic learning and development day, which was scheduled to take place in the near future.

Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for career development. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and carers as well as staff could raise concerns without fear.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff reported that the leadership culture was inclusive and how they felt valued and respected. Relationships between staff of all grades were positive, with strong teamwork and collaboration. Staff felt motivated about the future and planned changes for the service, for example we saw staff were excited about a new pelvic pain centre that had recently opened at the service, and which was used specifically for the treatment of varicose veins found in the pelvis.

The service had leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty and understood the impact their behaviours and leadership had on patient outcomes and experience.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation.

Leaders had a range of experience, skills and abilities to run the service, and they understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. Leaders were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Staff at all levels felt the leaders supported them to develop their skills and competencies. This was achieved by having in place a structured induction and shadowing programme for staff, and this enabled staff competencies to be signed off.

Leaders had taken incidents seriously and knew how to deal with concerns when raised which promoted a positive culture in the service. Leaders attended the clinic to assess for themselves how the service was running.

Staff achievement and success was recognised and celebrated. Staff were thanked for their work by patients and colleagues, in the form of thank you greeting cards and online group communication channels and forums used at work for both positive and constructive feedback.

The service fostered a generally positive culture where patients felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and offer ideas; the culture allowed staff to be confident their voices were heard. For example, leaders and managers encouraged staff to raise concerns in 1:1 meetings. The service had a dedicated Freedom to Speak Up Guardian and whistleblowing lead that staff could contact if they had any concerns they needed to raise.

The service had an up-to-date whistleblowing policy. This policy applied to all individuals working at the service and outlined some of the concerns that staff could raise, in addition to the escalation process for staff to raise concerns. This included an external escalation process, if staff who raised concerns felt these were not being appropriately addressed within the service. The policy included details of timescales and feedback from the investigation of concerns, whilst also reaffirming protection for staff speaking up and being treated fairly and without prejudice.

Patients, their families and carers were provided with information to explain how they could raise a concern and how this would be investigated. Senior staff on-site were encouraged to respond to immediate concerns or complaints with a view to resolution. There were policies to support the complaints process. Staff had regular meetings to discuss feedback from patients and identified learning and actions from feedback received.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. Staff worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for everyone.

Leaders acted to improve where there were any disparities in the experience of staff with protected equality characteristics.

Leaders took steps to remove bias from practices to ensure equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce within their place of work, and throughout their employment.

The service acted to prevent and address bullying and harassment at all levels and for all staff. Staff felt everyone was treated fairly and that they would be able to report behaviour or attitudes which were negative in style.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Staff used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. Staff acted on information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this with others when appropriate.

The service had a risk register, which had risks assigned to staff from different roles to action and which had clearly stated the owners of each risk and the likelihood and impact of each risk, along with actions taken to keep oversight and manage mitigations. Staff contributed to decision-making to help improve sustainability and improve quality of care. However, the risk register did not include the dates the risks were added to the register, did not include the dates the risks were last reviewed, and did not include the target dates for completion of each risk.

The service had a clear team and governance structure. The service operated effective governance processes through various committees and on-site activities. For example, the service held monthly clinical governance meetings, which contained details of recent clinical incidents and lessons learned. Performance data was analysed and compared within the provider organisation and where improvements were needed at the location level, action plans were developed to make this happen. For example, recent consent form audits at the clinic were at 96% compliance. The improvements identified from this audit were that sonographers needed to complete leg diagrams on consent forms for foam procedures. Some older consent forms lacked confirmation that a copy and patient booklet were provided, where this issue was rectified in recent forms and the teams were reminded of the requirements to ensure all parts of the consent form were fully completed. Leaders ensured action plans and the monitoring of these led to positive changes.

The meeting minutes for these committee meetings also stated that all staff were required monthly to read the minutes, and the service had initiated a read receipt audit to ensure staff had read the minutes which contained important information relevant to their roles.

There was a medical advisory committee led by a chair and supported by the service leadership, which included approval of practicing privileges and review of clinical outcomes of individual doctors. This was to ensure the medical practitioners who received privileges to practice within the clinic were of an appropriate and satisfactory standard. If there were any concerns with performance, there were processes to follow and if necessary, information would be shared with professional bodies as required including the GMC. The service’s practicing privileges policy and handbook stated that practicing privileges were reviewed annually, and a formal review carried out every 2 years. The review was based on a full review of the practitioner’s performance taking into account the most recent appraisal.

Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities. Staff had job descriptions, and these set out expectations and responsibilities. Where senior staff had designated tasks related to audits and monitoring quality of services, they understood what was required of them. Staff could find the data they needed, in easily accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were integrated and secure.

The service had plans to cope with unexpected events and had a business continuity plan, which included major incident plans. The service had not reported any data breaches and systems were secure. Patient identifiable information was handled correctly.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for patient. Staff shared information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff and leaders at the service collaborated with relevant external stakeholders and agencies to improve care and treatment for patients using the service. For example, consultant surgeons wrote letters to the registered GPs of patients treated at the clinic to confirm the outcome of procedures undertaken and any further medical advice needed post-procedure. These letters were sent electronically to the registered GP addresses of the patient and which were securely stored in the NHS medical records for the patient, to share information and learning with external partners.

Leaders and managers actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. We saw evidence of this through patient feedback systems, online reviews, surveys, and discussions recorded in clinical governance meetings. We saw clinical governance meeting minutes, which included discussions on positive and negative feedback from patients and consideration given to improvements that could be made, having a section dedicated specifically to patient feedback updates called ‘Improving the Experience of Patients’. The leadership team viewed all patient feedback as a way of driving forward improvement within the service.

The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Staff often encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for patients. Staff actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. The service used The Whiteley Protocol, which was a research-based protocol used in the treatment of venous disease, and it was created and developed by the service’s nominated individual and founder of the clinic. Leaders continually updated the protocol on the basis of the service’s research and audit results, research from other experts around the world and taking into account new technologies and innovations continually appearing in the effective treatment for the management of varicose veins.

Staff conducted extensive clinical studies to assess the effectiveness of various venous treatments and techniques, which formed the basis of the protocol. The protocol was supported by scientific evidence and research activity. This approach helped staff and patients to have confidence in the treatment offered. All members of staff at the service were trained in the protocol which meant treatment was consistently delivered to a high standard, and any questions patients had could be answered appropriately at all stages throughout the patient pathway.

Leaders we spoke to said they regularly carried out academic work and research within the field of venous disease via different methods, including book publications. For example, leaders contributed to educational podcasts that were released, which included specific areas such as chronic pelvic pain and foam sclerotherapy topics. There were online national newspaper articles featuring the founder of the clinic on preventing blood clots during travel. As a result of the various academic work the service contributed to, this encouraged patients to come to the service to be treated for their venous conditions.

Staff and leaders were committed to excellence that centred on the patient experience. The service placed patients at the focus of academic work and research and when a relevant patient was identified to be eligible to participate in the academic study, the service would obtain relevant consent before enrolling the patient into the academic study. The service would follow up with patients involved in their academic studies, as they would with any other patients and provide the same standard of care with regards to outcomes and procedural conduct.

The service offered work experience placements to students who were aspiring to become vascular surgeons, and leaders and staff attended various university events to advertise and promote in an academic setting the work they carried out.

The nominated individual of the service was the founder of the College of Phlebology and provided data to the College of Phlebology venous registry dashboard. The College of Phlebology was an international organisation dedicated to promoting excellence in the treatment and management of venous disorders and aimed to provide a platform for sharing best practice, advancing research, and promoting education and training in phlebology.

Leaders and staff participated in recent international conferences dedicated to the diagnosis, management and treatment of venous disease. For example, leaders had attended the recent Vein in Venice Symposium 2026. This conference provided a focused platform where knowledge, experience and innovation in phlebology could be openly exchanged, whilst addressing the growing demand for specialised venous education, which remained under-represented within the area of larger vascular surgery despite its rapid technological and clinical development.