Updated 19 January 2026
Date of Assessment: 24 March 2026. Fitzrovia Medical Clinic is an independent provider of private medical services. The clinic delivers private face to face and remote GP consultations, investigations and prescribing to adults and children. The clinic is based within Fitzrovia Hospital, 13-14 Fitzroy Square, London, W1T 6AH. The clinic operates between the hours of 9am to 5:30pm, Monday to Friday. The clinic is registered to provide the regulated activities of treatment of disease, disorder or injury, diagnostic and screening procedures, surgical procedures and family planning. We carried out an announced comprehensive assessment of Fitzrovia Medical Clinic on 24 March 2026 due to the service not being inspected since registering with CQC.
SAFE: Staff described an open culture where concerns could be raised and knew how to report incidents. The premises were clean, accessible and generally well-maintained with routine safety checks in place. However, systems to assess, monitor and mitigate risks were not always effective. The clinic did not have an effective failsafe policy or system in place to ensure appropriate follow-up of abnormal results. The clinic did not have effective systems in place to ensure that clinical records were completed fully and consistently, including documenting adequate clinical assessment and clear, safety-netting advice.
Patient identification checks were not consistently completed or recorded. Patient follow-up and continuity of care were not always carried out. The clinic did not have effective systems in place to ensure that appropriate medicines and equipment were available, monitored and had not expired. We found missing and out of date items, with no documented risk assessments which assessed if medicines and equipment were required. The clinic did not have effective triaging processes and staff were unable to demonstrate knowledge of sepsis recognition and systems for escalation of patients. The provider did not always have effective systems to ensure safe staffing. Recruitment, immunisation and training records were incomplete, and we were not assured that appropriate checks had been completed.
EFFECTIVE: We could not be assured that there were sufficient systems to consistently assess needs and deliver evidence-based care. There was no system to identify high-risk patients, some records did not demonstrate adequate clinical assessment, and safety-netting advice was not always recorded or tailored to presenting risks. There was no formal system for receiving, reviewing and acting on patient safety alerts, and the provider could not demonstrate how alerts were considered or shared with other clinicians.
CARING: Patients were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff described providing clear information to help patients make informed choices and the limited patient feedback we saw was positive, describing staff as being caring, professional and responsive. Staff told us they considered patient’s individual needs and made reasonable adjustments, including longer appointments and additional support where required. We found that the service did not ask patients about any reasonable adjustments they required on the online booking form and any information provided verbally to staff members at the time of booking was not routinely recorded in patient records. Staff were not always able to describe processes for urgent concerns or directing people to appropriate emergency services.
RESPONSIVE: The service had arrangements to support access including accessible premises, online and telephone booking and interpreter services. However, follow-up appointments only took place if patients booked and paid for further appointments and results were communicated through dictated letters rather than direct contact. Systems for joined-up care were not always effective, and the provider did not demonstrate formal referral pathways. We were not assured that the clinic had effective mechanisms for patients to give feedback on services. The clinic advertised a feedback QR code, however, this was not functioning during our assessment. We saw limited feedback from patients gathered by the service.
WELL-LED: Leaders were visible, approachable and supportive. Staff felt able to raise concerns and had access to some training. We found that governance systems were not effective. The service lacked a clear, shared vision, staff roles and responsibilities were not always clear and records relating to training and recruitment were incomplete. The service did not have sufficient awareness or oversight of the arrangements for emergency medicines and emergency equipment to be used in medical emergencies. The provider did not demonstrate effective partnership working with external organisations or robust systems for learning, audit and quality improvement. Audit activity was limited in scope and did not evidence effective follow-up or sustained improvement.
The provider had started to take action following our feedback and concerns from this assessment.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within with providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.