Ear Wax Removal Bromsgrove Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed people’s care and worked with other services to achieve this. This was the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The practitioner made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Feedback from people using the service was positive. People felt involved in any assessment of their needs and felt confident the practitioner understood their individual and cultural needs.

The practitioner spoke with someone on the phone before their appointment to ensure the service was appropriate. A detailed medical history was taken during their first appointment and before any treatment commenced. For example, if a person had a perforated ear drum, they would not be able to have irrigation treatment and the practitioner explained why this was the case.

The practitioner planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The practitioner had systems in place to ensure they kept up to date with evidence-based guidance and legislation. The practitioner kept records of the relevant training they had completed, and this was available for people to see when they attended appointments for the first time.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. The practitioner had policies and processes in place for sharing information with other clinicians such as a person’s GP for referrals if this was needed.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support by giving advice and guidance during each appointment.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to support continuous improvement. They ensured outcomes were positive, consistent, and aligned with both clinical expectations and the needs of the people using the service. The practitioner used individuals’ clinical records to inform treatment options at follow up appointments, helping people understand what had worked well for them. People told us they received clear advice on maintaining good ear health, which supported their ongoing wellbeing.

The service showed exemplary effectiveness in ensuring informed consent, with processes which went far beyond expected standards. People’s rights were explained with clarity and sensitivity, and the practitioner took great care to ensure individuals fully understood their options, the nature of the treatment, and any associated risks. Consent was treated as an ongoing, dynamic process, consistently revisited and reinforced at every stage of care.

The practitioner completed highly detailed consent documentation, capturing risks, benefits, and alternatives to treatment. These forms were signed and dated by both parties, reviewed at each appointment, and updated promptly, demonstrating a rigorous and systematic approach which supported safe and effective clinical decision making.

Additional time was routinely incorporated into appointments to enable meaningful, unrushed discussions about consent. This ensured people were empowered, confident, and well informed before proceeding with treatment. The practitioner demonstrated a strong grasp of relevant legislation and national guidance, applying this knowledge consistently to ensure decision making was lawful, person centred, and clinically robust.

Where children under 16 years old were treated, the service showed particularly effective practice by ensuring a parent or guardian attended while also obtaining clear, affirmative consent directly from the young person. This approach supported autonomy, understanding, and safety, while maintaining full compliance with safeguarding and consent requirements.