Clear Ears Clinic Bedford

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 that staff involved patients in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support. Staff regularly reviewed patient’s care and worked with other services to achieve this.

Patients were involved in assessments of their needs. Care delivery followed the latest evidence-based practices and clinical guidelines. Staff prioritised clear communication to ensure patients could provide informed consent for their treatment. When a patient lacked the capacity to make decisions, staff collaborated with their designated representatives to act in their best interests.

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

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 made sure patients’ 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. Patients reported feeling fully involved in the assessment of their needs and were confident that staff understood their individual and cultural requirements.

During appointments, staff actively monitored each patients’ health, building rapport and focusing on wellbeing to ensure care was safe and appropriate. The service followed a structured consultation process. An initial consultation was arranged to perform a physical assessment of the patients’ ears and to discuss their specific needs. Before each appointment, patients completed a consent form that captured essential information regarding their ear health.

During these consultations, staff provided clear information on the treatment and necessary aftercare. This included a thorough explanation of any risks and side-effects following the procedure.

The service planned and delivered patient’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.

To ensure patient safety, staff minimised the time that microsuction and irrigation equipment was in use, reducing the potential risk of noise-related damage to the ear. The service maintained effective systems to ensure staff remained up-to-date with the latest professional legislation and clinical guidance.

Clear Ears Clinic Ltd was operated by a lone practitioner therefore this quality statement was not relevant for this service. This quality statement has not been assessed or scored.

The service supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported patients to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The service proactively supported patients to manage their hearing health. Staff prioritised health promotion by providing tailored advice on ear hygiene and preventative self-care, such as the safe use of softening agents to reduce future wax impaction.

The service routinely monitored patients’ care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and patient expectations.

Staff provided patients with clear advice regarding potential side effects, such as dizziness or tinnitus. They encouraged patients to return to the service if they experienced any complications or unexpected symptoms. To date, there had been no recorded instances of patients returning with such concerns.

The service told patients about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of consent legislation and applied it consistently in practice. For patients under the age of 16, accompanied by a parent or guardian, staff prioritised the young person’s autonomy by seeking their verbal consent first to ensure they were willing to proceed with the procedure. The service operated a proactive digital consent process on a secured online booking system, encouraging parents to complete documentation online prior to arrival. For those unable to access the system, staff provided onsite support to complete forms, which were then manually updated on the online system to provide a clear record of consent.

The service maintained a strict non-restraint policy; staff did not use physical restraint on young patients. If a child required physical support or reassurance during a procedure, this was provided solely by the parent or guardian to maintain a safe and trusting environment.