Ely Ear Care

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this service since registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

This is because the service had a strong culture of learning and development. Patients were kept safe by an appropriately trained and experienced clinician. The premises met people’s needs, was clean and well-maintained. The provider had good oversight of risk which was embedded throughout the service.
 

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty.

The provider actively sought the views of people using the service and used these to improve where required. We saw evidence of positive changes made to the service to enhance care, both in response to feedback and proactively from learning and development activity. These changes were reviewed and audited after implementation to ensure that they were safe. Although the service had not received any complaints, there was a process in place to manage these, and this was clearly outlined on their website.

They listened to concerns about safety and had systems in place to investigate safety events when required. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Although there had been no significant events within the last 12 months, the provider demonstrated understanding of Duty of Candour.
 

The service worked with patients, carers and wider system healthcare partners to maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The service had identified that where a referral or signposting to another service was required there was a need for clear documentation to support patients. As a result, they had implemented a process where the images taken during assessment or treatment could be sent to the patient securely, to assist other healthcare partners with further care. There was a governance process in place to support this.

We also saw evidence of effective signposting and follow up of complex cases that required GP or Hospital care.
 

The service demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities related to the safeguarding of people using the service. They had clear policies in place and were able to explain the actions they would take should concerns arise.

Training was in place and up-to-date to ensure that everyone using the service could be appropriately supported in a way that met their rights to live safely and free from harm.
 

The service always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided personalised care that met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We were given examples of this approach by both by the provider and the patients that spoke to us. This included when patients needed additional support or advice, safety netting or onward referral.

Appropriate emergency equipment was available and maintained. The service provider had extensive training and experience in how to recognise a deteriorating patient and knew of what action to take.

Patients were advised on risks related to their condition and were aware of the appropriate steps to take should their symptoms worsen. The provider also managed the appointment availability, so that ‘urgent’ access was possible if required. All patients were encouraged to submit feedback following their appointment and those who did not have email or text access were contacted by the provider.
 

The service was fully aware of potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The clinic room was designed to support the clinical activity taking place. All equipment was fit for purpose and regularly serviced.

People could access the building safely, with a ramp available if required.

Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. We were given examples of actions that had been taken in response to any audit findings.

There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.
 

As previously identified Ely Ear Care is a private ear care service which is owned and run by a single registered nurse. They were appropriately trained for the registered activity taking place and had an extensive background in ear care in several settings.

Relevant professional registration and revalidation with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) was in place and up-to-date. All expected training was completed regularly, and the provider demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the requirements. Extensive continuing professional development had been undertaken, and we saw evidence of updated processes and techniques introduced as a result. The provider was committed to continuing to develop the service, looking to innovate for the benefit of their patients.
 

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection appropriately. The service provider was the lead for this activity and was appropriately trained to do so.

Systems were in place to manage Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). Regular cleaning and decontamination took place, and this was clearly documented and audited. Clinical waste was appropriately managed in the clinical environment, stored correctly and collected by an externally contracted company. The provider had also taken additional steps to reduce the risks of people coming into contact with sharp implements.

There was suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) available in the clinic for the activity being undertaken and appropriate disposal arrangements in place.

The clinic room was clean and uncluttered. There was appropriate equipment for handwashing and signage in place to advise correct technique.
 

As Ely Ear Care operates as an independent healthcare service which is focused solely on ear wax removal there are no medications prescribed or managed at the service.

Patients are advised, in line with the current position supported by evidence, to administer olive oil drops prior to their procedure. These can be supplied by the clinic if required or obtained from a pharmacy as they do not require a prescription. A small stock of drops was kept on the premises; all were appropriately stored and in date.