- Independent doctor
Regent Street Clinic
Assessment report published 8 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 10 September 2025 to 15 September 2025. Healthcare 3K Ltd is a private health care company who trade as Regent Street Clinic and are registered to deliver the regulated activities of treatment of disease or injury and diagnostics and screening. The provider was previously inspected in December 2024 but not rated; there are no previous ratings for this provider. Healthcare 3K Ltd has seventeen Regent Street Clinic satellite locations around the United Kingdom, and their main registered location is in Nottingham. Private health care services provided include, travel vaccinations, remote GP consultations, sexual health, health screening, hayfever treatment, aesthetics, medicals, occupational health and counselling services. There is a registered nurse at each clinic site, who are supported, mainly virtually, by a general practitioner, who is the lead clinician. People visiting the clinics for regulated activities were seen by nurses, and if further clinical input or prescribing was required, a GP and advanced nurse practitioner were consulted to progress the treatment plan.
We carried out onsite assessments on 10, 11 and 15 September 2025 at 4 Regent Street Clinic sites: Nottingham, Derby, Lincoln and Bristol. These commenced unannounced, with the subsequent visits announced at short notice. The reason for the assessment was to follow up on a warning notice previously issued to the provider, and in response to concerns received regarding ongoing service provision and management. The assessment was carried out following our new approach to assessment; Single Assessment Framework (SAF). The assessment included off-site activity which included interviews with staff and feedback from patients. Our assessment reviewed all quality statements under our assessment framework in order to rate the service, except those which are not relevant for this service as an independent health provider.
The service was not always operated in a way that kept people safe. The facilities and equipment did not always meet the needs of people, and there was limited assurance they were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. Leaders made sure staff received training and responded positively and quickly to training recommendations. Whilst there had been some improvements in medicines management aspects reviewed at the previous assessment, the service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.
People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. However, people did not always understand their costs, care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. However, their confidentiality was not always observed.
People knew how to give feedback. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment.
Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. However, some staff did not feel supported to give feedback and speak up without retribution. Staff were not always clear about roles and responsibilities within the service. Although the management team had grown and governance procedures were under review, we were not assured there was adequate clinical and management oversight to ensure quality standards were met across all clinic sites.
We identified breaches in the Health and Social Care Act 2008, Regulation 12, specifically assessing the risks to the health and safety of service users of receiving the care or treatment, and the proper and safe use of medicines. We issued the provider with a warning notice to make improvements in respect of medicines. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. Leaders were receptive to new ideas from staff. They responded positively to findings from our assessments through remedial actions and implementing plans to improve their services. We have not yet assessed if improvements have been completed and embedded within practice.
People's experience of this service
We received concerns from patients who had used the service prior to the assessment regarding their experience at the clinics. People told us care, treatment and costs were not explained clearly to them, and complaints were not always addressed. We did not speak to patients visiting the clinics during our assessment. We found people’s experience had improved with the expansion of the management team who managed complaints and feedback. People who experienced negative experiences were proactively engaged with to resolve their concerns.