The Care Quality Commission
  • Clinic
  • Slimming clinic

Archived: Swiss Cottage Diet Clinic

239a Finchley Road, Camden, London, NW3 6LS (020) 7435 0282

Provided and run by:
Dr. Bhagya Raj Subbarayan

All Inspections

30 July 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an unannounced inspection at Swiss Cottage Diet Clinic on 30 July 2015 to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in relation to the safe handling of medicines in the service.

‘CQC inspected the clinic on 15 July 2014 and asked the provider to make improvements regarding the management of medicines. We checked these areas as part of this focused inspection and found this had been resolved.

The centre provides individualised weight loss programmes, under medical supervision. It is open Monday to Saturday 11:30am to 6pm, and closed on Wednesdays.

Our key findings in the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • People were given health checks, including calculating their BMI when they first attended the clinic. People were only treated if their BMI was in the acceptable higher range.
  • Medicines were stored securely and handled safely
  • Bendrofluazide was no longer prescribed or stocked by the clinic.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

15 July 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our previous inspection on 15 November 2013 we found that patient's needs were not assessed or care planned and delivered in line with their individual treatment plans. We found that patients were not protected against the risk of unsafe or unsuitable premises and that accurate and appropriate records were not maintained by the service. We also found the provider had not maintained adequate insurance and indemnity cover to protect patients or staff.

As a result we required the provider to submit an action plan telling us what action they would take to become compliant with Regulations 9 (Care and Welfare of people who use services),15 (Safety and suitability of premises) and 20 (Records) Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, and Regulation 13 (Financial position) Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

During this inspection we found that patient's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual treatment plan. Patients said they were happy with the care and treatment they received. Comments included 'they took my medical history, asked regarding any allergies and did all the checks.' and 'I'm very happy with the treatment, they are very good.'

We found treatment was provided in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. Various health and safety checks were carried out, such as checks on the fire health and safety risk and electrical appliances to make sure the premises were safe for patients and visitors.

We found that improvements had been made to record keeping and that the provider had adequate insurance and indemnity cover in place.

At this inspection we also looked at the management of medicines, specifically the arrangements the provider had in place for obtaining, recording, handling, using, safe keeping, dispensing, safe administration and disposal of medicines. We found the provider did not always have the appropriate arrangements in place to ensure that patients were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management of medicines.

15 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Swiss Cottage Diet Clinic is a small family run practice. There is one doctor working at the clinic who offers advice on weight control and dietary needs, they are supported by another member of staff. The clinic is open five days per week.

This report is a follow up to our report published in July 2013. We had inspected this provider on 24 January 2013, when we noted some issues which had a minor impact on people using the service. The provider did not ensure that people were protected from risk of abuse, because it had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse taking place. The provider had not undertaken regular monitoring of quality of the service.

We made a further visit on 15 November 2013 to check on the action the provider had taken to meet the requirements of the regulations. We found that the provider had put in place an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. The provider had also taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We noted that people's records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed. However the provider had not ensured accurate patients' records were maintained. The provider did not maintain records in relation to the management of the regulated activity.

24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People who use the service are given the appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. A copy of the patient information sheet is given to them with their prescribed medication. We saw that privacy was maintained during patient consultations and that the support people received reflected their individual needs. People had a chance to discuss their choices and preferences with the doctor.

We found two areas for improvement. The first was that there were no safeguarding procedures available and staff did not know what to do if they had safeguarding concerns. Secondly there was no evidence of the provider quality assuring their service to ensure it safely met the needs of people using the service.

25 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People who use the service were not available to interview during our visit. There were questionnaires and other information that people had completed. These told us that people were satisfied with the service provided. They had the various weight loss procedures fully explained during consultation and been made aware of alternative treatments available to them and any risks attached to them.

They did not directly comment on the clinic's quality assurance system or number of staff but did tell us they were happy with the service they had received.