The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Dr Vania Healthcare

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

49 Netherhall Gardens, Hampstead, London, NW3 5RJ 0330 113 8422

Provided and run by:
Dr Josevania Ribeiro Martins

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Vania Healthcare on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Dr Vania Healthcare, you can give feedback on this service.

01 05 2019

During a routine inspection

The provider offers services specialising in sexual health, infertility, gynaecology, and female ultrasound. This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some general exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. For example, the service provides aesthetic procedures such as Botox and dermal fillers which are not regulated by the CQC. Therefore, at Dr Vania Healthcare, we were only able to inspect the services which were subject to regulation.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had systems in place to manage significant events.
  • The provider had a clear vision to deliver high quality care for patients.
  • The service had clearly defined systems, processes and practices to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Policies and procedures were in place to govern all relevant areas.
  • The lead clinician had been trained in areas relevant to their role.
  • The service had systems in place for monitoring and auditing the care that had been provided.
  • The lead clinician assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence-based guidance.
  • Information about services were available and was easy to understand.
  • The lead clinician had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was an effective system in place for obtaining patients’ consent.
  • The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The service was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

To Be Confirmed

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 17 October 2018 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.

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.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had systems in place to manage significant events.
  • The provider had a clear vision to deliver high quality care for patients.
  • The service had clearly defined systems, processes and practices to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Policies and procedures were in place to govern all relevant areas.
  • The lead clinician had been trained in areas relevant to their role.
  • The service had systems in place for monitoring and auditing the care that had been provided.
  • The lead clinician assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • Information about services were available and was easy to understand.
  • The lead clinician had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was an effective system in place for obtaining patients’ consent.
  • The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The service was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

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

  • Review information displayed for patients whose first language is not English.
  • Continue to review emergency medicines risk assessment to reflect changes in circumstances or guidance.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice