The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Dr Talha Shawaf Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

64 Harley Street, London, W1G 7HB (020) 7631 4779

Provided and run by:
Dr Talha Shawaf

All Inspections

14 August 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection November 2019 – Not rated)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Dr Talha Shawaf Clinic as part of our inspection programme.

Dr Talha Shawaf provides gynaecological and reproductive medicine services for adults over the age of 18. The services include consultation on fertility care, investigations and treatments including In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF), pre and early pregnancy care, menopause and gynaecological conditions. Patients having IVF treatments are referred to a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) licensed centre for the surgical procedures where Dr Shawaf works under practising privileges (the granting of practising privileges is a well-established process within independent healthcare whereby a medical practitioner is granted permission to work in an independent hospital or clinic, in independent private practice, or within the provision of community services).

Dr Talha Shawaf is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received 12 CQC comment cards, all of which were positive about the service. Patients described the provider as highly professional, friendly, respectful and informative.

Our key findings were:

  • Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe.
  • The provider was aware of current and relevant evidence based guidance and they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out his role.
  • The provider did not audit clinical outcomes however In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) success rates were independently monitored on an annual basis.
  • Patients who used the service had an initial consultation where a detailed medical history was taken from the patient. Patients and others who used the service were able to access detailed information regarding the services offered and delivered by the provider.
  • The website for the service was very clear and easily understood. In addition, it contained information regarding treatments available and fees payable.
  • Patient satisfaction with the standard and quality of services received was high.
  • The clinic had processes in place to securely share relevant information with others such as the patient’s GP and when required, safeguarding bodies and private healthcare facilities.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue to review necessary training requirements and establish when training is required to be refreshed.
  • Review arrangements to be assured that health and safety systems are being undertaken and audited appropriately.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

21 November 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 21 November 2017 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Background

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Dr Talha Shawaf provides gynaecological and reproductive medicine services for adults over the age of 18. The services include consultation on fertility care, investigations and treatments including In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF), pre and early pregnancy care, menopause, gynaecological conditions and surgical procedures related to reproductive and specifically to fertility care. Patients are referred to a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) licensed centre for the surgical procedures where Dr Shawaf works under practising privileges (the granting of practising privileges is a well-established process within independent healthcare whereby a medical practitioner is granted permission to work in an independent hospital or clinic, in independent private practice, or within the provision of community services).

Dr Shawaf is a single-handed provider with a secretary who consults six days a week from a room at 64 Harley Street which is rented from another health care provider. He also has an arrangement with the provider to utilise their nursing staff if chaperoning services are required and access to emergency medicines and equipment. Dr Shawaf consults an average of 10 patients a week at the clinic.

The provider is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) for the regulated activities of Treatment of Disease Disorder or Injury and Diagnostic & Screening Procedures.

We received six completed CQC comment cards which were all very positive about the service provided. We were unable to speak to any patients directly at the inspection.

Our key findings were:

  • Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. Although the provider had not completed safeguarding children training.
  • The provider was aware of current evidence based guidance and they had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out his role.
  • Clinical outcomes were monitored on an annual basis. In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) success rates for the previous year was 65%.
  • The provider was aware of their responsibility to respect people’s diversity and human rights.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment from the clinic within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • There was a complaints procedure in place and information on how to complain was readily available.
  • Governance arrangements were in place. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Review the arrangements for monitoring infection control standards.
  • Complete safeguarding training in accordance with intercollegiate guidance.