• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

The Gynae Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

23 Milford House, 7 Queen Anne Street, London, W1G 9HN (020) 7580 8090

Provided and run by:
Gynae Centre Ltd

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Gynae Centre 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 The Gynae Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

15 December 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out a focussed follow up inspection of the Safe and Well led domains of Surgery and Termination of pregnancy, to check compliance with concerns identified in the warning notices issued in September 2021. At this inspection we found:

  • The provider had complied with the warning notices issued in September 2021. The provider had made improvements to comply with the provisions of Regulation 12: Safe Care and Treatment, and Regulation 17: Good Governance.
  • The service now used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. Medicines were now labelled safely in accordance with the provisions of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
  • Staff now completed and updated risk assessments for each patient and removed or minimised risks. The service had implemented the use of a nationally recognised tool (National Early Warning System 2 (NEWS2)) to identify deteriorating patients and escalate them appropriately. In addition, women undergoing surgical terminations of pregnancy were now risk assessed for venous thromboembolism (VTE).
  • Leaders now operated effective governance processes throughout the service. They had implemented an audit programme to monitor the effectiveness of care and treatment. The provider had implemented comprehensive policies and these included, infection prevention and control, medicines management, never events, safeguarding and risk management.

However:

  • Some of the provider’s policies did not have a start or review date.

4, 6 and 12 August 2021

During a routine inspection

We had not previously rated this location. We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • Staff did not have the appropriate training on how to recognise and report abuse. Not all clinical staff were trained to Level 3 in safeguarding adults and children. It is a requirement for clinical staff working in termination of pregnancy services to be trained to Level 3.
  • Although staff followed infection control principles to protect patients, themselves and others from infection, the service did not always use systems or processes to identify how well they prevented infections.
  • Staff did not always complete and update all relevant risk assessments for each patient and therefore did not always remove or minimise risks. At the time of our inspection, staff did not use a nationally recognised tool to identify deteriorating patients and escalate them appropriately.
  • The service did not always use systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. Pills by post medicines were not labelled safely and in accordance with the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
  • The service did not have adequate policies and procedures to make sure staff followed guidance for decision making. The service did not always monitor the effectiveness of care and treatment. They did not use audit findings to make improvements and achieve good outcomes for patients.
  • Leaders did not demonstrate full understanding of the issues the service faced or how to manage them. They did not operate effective governance processes. Leaders and teams did not use systems to manage performance effectively. The service did not have a risk management system to record the management or mitigation of risks.

However:

  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers. They understood service users' personal, cultural and religious needs.
  • Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
  • Staff assessed and monitored patients regularly to see if they were in pain and gave pain relief in a timely way.

6 October 2016

During a routine inspection

The Gynae Centre is operated by the The Gynae Centre Limited. The service opened in 1999. It is a small independent service in central London, offering gynaecological consultations and minor day surgery for women, as well early medical and surgical termination of pregnancy services up to nine weeks gestation. Minor surgery treatments included, labioplasty, vagionplasty,hymen repair, hysteroscopy, incision/marsupialzation of Bartholin’s cyst, mini curette of uterus and loop excision of the cervix.

The service has no inpatient beds. Facilities include one consultation room and one treatment room with ultrasound diagnostic equipment.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology, under our routine programme of activity. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 6 October 2016.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we do not rate

We do not currently have a legal duty to rate termination of pregnancy and cosmetic surgery service, or the regulated activities they provide. We do however; highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve, and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • There were systems for staff to report incidents and for investigatory processes to be allowed.

  • The environment was visibly clean and well maintained, and there were measures to prevent the spread of infection.

  • There were systems to ensure the safe storage, use, and administration of medicines.

  • There were adequate numbers of suitably trained staff to meet patient’s needs. In addition to safety related training, staff were trained with regard to safeguarding vulnerable people. As a result, staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns.

  • Patient records were stored safely and medical details were recorded well. We saw evidence to indicate patients’ needs had been discussed, and consent was sought before treatment. Subsequent care and treatment was delivered in accordance with national and professional guidelines.

  • We found arrangements had been set up and were used to ensure doctors and anaesthetists met the requirements for practising privileges.

  • Patients could access care when they needed it, and they were treated with dignity and kindness, and their privacy was respected.

  • Patients were able to raise concerns easily and there were good systems to handle patients concerns in a fair and compassionate nature.

However, we also found the following issues, which the service provider needs to improve:

The service should:

  • We gave immediate feedback to the service regarding the decontamination of hysterscopes, as improvements were required to ensure the service was following national guidelines. Within two days of our inspection feedback, the centre had reacted and provided an action plan and evidence of a new service level agreement between themselves and a hospital trust for the provision of sterile services, which took place with immediate effect.

  • Provide dates on the policies, which were used to inform staff practices. Although policies provided information to support the delivery of the services, they were not dated and needed to be more in-depth. As a result, it was difficult to determine when they came into use, when they required a review or if they had been updated.

  • Update the safeguarding policy to reflect the intercollegiate document 2014 and latest guidelines.

  • Provide a policy for the duty of candour. Although staff were able to tell us this meant being open, transparent, and apologising to patients when things went wrong, nursing staff had not received training on this matter, and there was no policy at the centre.

  • Make sure the health care assistant (HCA) was not referred to as a nurse, which was misleading to patients, and may have led to assumptions about their skills and competencies.

  • Staff told us patients who attended the service for a termination of pregnancy were not routinely made aware of the statutory requirements of the HSA4 forms. They were not informed the data published by the Department of Health for statistical purposes was anonymised.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our inspection in September 2013 we had found that people were not always protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not always been followed.

The Gynae Centre has provided us with evidence to show that information for staff and people being treated has been revised and updated and the service is now in line with government standards.

19 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak with people who use the services on the day of our visit.

We looked at personal records that showed people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual treatment plan.

Processes were in place to obtain people's verbal and written consent to care and treatment.

Procedures were followed to ensure that people were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

People were not always protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not always been followed. There was a lack of available information for staff and people using the service to protect them against risks of acquiring infections.

People's personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose. Records relating to termination of pregnancy met legal and regulatory requirements. Staff records and other records relevant to the management of the services were also accurate and fit for purpose.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs, with arrangements in place for people to contact the doctor out of hours if necessary.

The quality of the service was assessed and monitored, and feedback was taken into account and acted upon.

1 February 2012

During a routine inspection

We were not able to speak with people using this service. As this is a single-handed private doctor service the doctor had made no appointments with patients so that he was able to be free for our visit. We saw evidence from the last patient survey results from 2011 which showed that people using the service were very satisfied with the service offered at this location.