Olicana Healthcare Limited Also known as Olicana Healthcare

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 found that the service provided safe care and treatment for patients, and that they were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. The premises was well maintained, and processes were in place to manage health and safety, this included fire safety and legionella controls. Clinical waste was handled, managed, and disposed of in an effective and safe manner. We saw the provider had a positive learning culture and had in place processes for service improvement.

This is the first assessment of the 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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness, honesty, and self-improvement. The provider told us that they had established processes to improve services based on learning, this included learning from significant events, complaints, audit findings, and patient feedback. The service had procedures for identifying, investigating and taking corrective actions to improve. The provider told us that since they started operating in 2023, they had not received any complaints, and had only recorded 1 significant event relating to a data breach. We saw that this event had been investigated, discussed by the directors, and that measures had been put in place to prevent a recurrence. We also heard that the service had contacted and discussed the data breach with the associated patient, and assessed the need to formally report externally. We saw that a programme of audits was in place which included infection prevention and control audits, and clinical audits. The audits undertaken showed high levels of organisational compliance.

The service worked with patients, and when required other healthcare partners, to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. The provider operated with high levels of care continuity with clinicians keeping in regular contact with patients throughout their treatment. There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients, and we saw that the service collected necessary patient safety information at the time of booking. This included details of overall health status, allergies, and details regarding the patient’s next of kin. If a patient had been referred to the service by another health or treatment provider, they could also have access to additional patient health information from the referring organisation. As a general principle, the service did not routinely share information with the patient’s own GP, unless this was required due to identified clinical need, and with the consent of the patient. If the service felt that they could not support the patient directly after assessing their needs, it sought to support them by giving advice to the patient and signposting to more appropriate services.

The service had procedures and measures in place to safeguard patients, and protect them from harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. It was noted the services were not provided to patients under 18 years of age. All the directors who provided the services had undergone enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks, and had undertaken safeguarding training appropriate to their roles. When we spoke to the provider, they were clear on how to recognise and raise a safeguarding concern. The provider had established processes to identify, record, and action safeguarding concerns. This included the development of a safeguarding policy, the latest version of which was dated October 2024. The provider had nominated a safeguarding lead to oversee and manage safeguarding. We saw the directors had received training in equalities, learning disability and autism awareness, and mental capacity. If requested the service was able to arrange chaperones for patients.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks. The provider told us that they spent time during consultations discussing with patients their needs and expectations, and sought to build their care and treatment options around these. The provider told us patients who had been seen by the service had good spoken English skills. However, if required patients were able to bring friends, family or others to support them with their language needs, or the service could access a translation and interpretation service to enable effective communication. Due to the nature of the service, it carried limited medicines to deal with emergencies. Decisions made regarding equipment and medicines held had been subject to a risk assessment. The directors had all received required emergency training, which included basic life support training. Patients were advised on risks related to their condition, and actions to take if their condition deteriorated.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the provision of safe care. The service was delivered from a premises shared with other businesses, and leased a consultation room from which it delivered its services. As part of the lease the premises owner undertook responsibility for certain health and safety checks such as water testing and flushing, and fire alarm checks, the results of which were shared with the provider. When we examined these, we saw that these were satisfactory. We saw that the provider had undertaken health and safety, and fire risk assessments, and that necessary control measures were in place. Should the premises become unusable, the service would initially seek to cancel booked clinics, and reorganise appointments, assessments and consultations. It was noted that access to the first-floor consultation room was via a steep and winding staircase which could prove difficult for the elderly or those with a physical disability. The provider told us that it was made clear to patients at the time of making an appointment that access via the staircase may be difficult and possibly unsuitable for them.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced clinicians, who had received effective support, supervision and development. Outside of the service the directors worked as clinicians within the mainstream NHS as GPs and as a consultant radiologist. We saw the 2 GP directors had gained additional qualifications in musculoskeletal medicine. All directors were also subject to external appraisal and revalidation. We saw they worked together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Due to the nature of the service the directors were able to ensure they had the capacity available to deliver safe and effective services. We found training was up to date, and the learning and development needs of the directors had been managed appropriately, and they worked within their agreed areas of competence. As the directors were the only staff in the service there had been no external recruitment into the organisation.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading, and had processes in place and the professional knowledge to share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly if required. The service had a designated infection, prevention and control lead, and all persons who delivered care had undertaken relevant training. We saw on the day of our assessment the consultation room and ancillary areas such as the waiting room and toilets were in a clean condition and were well maintained. Risk assessments and audits had been completed, and actions taken to mitigate infection prevention and control risks. For example, we saw an audit had been undertaken in February 2025 into sharps handling and disposal, which showed good levels of compliance. We saw clinical waste was safely handled, stored and disposed of. The provider had a waste disposal contract with a licenced waste disposal organisation.

The service made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. They involved people in planning and understanding when medicines were used in their treatment, or prescribed to them. The service used a limited number of such as steroids, and also antibiotics, and local anaesthetics. Clinicians had received necessary training, were competency assessed, and were confident in managing medicines safety. The service managed private prescriptions appropriately and securely. The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Clinicians took steps which ensured they prescribed medicines appropriately to optimise care outcomes, including antibiotics. There was a programme of regular clinical audits that focused on improving care and treatment.