The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Jenna Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

28 Englands Lane, Belsize Park, London, NW3 4UE (020) 7722 2886

Provided and run by:
Jenna (UK) Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

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

12/09/2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 02/2018).

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 Jenna Clinic (the clinic) on 12 September 2019. We previously inspected the clinic on 7 February 2018 (at which time the service was not rated). The full comprehensive report on the 7 February 2018 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all services’ link for Jenna Clinic on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Jenna Clinic provides non-NHS gynaecological consultations, ultrasound and assessments for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. The provider also rents a room to a practitioner undertaking “aesthetic” assessments and botox / filler injections which are exempt from regulation by the CQC, as set out in Schedule 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Our key findings were:

•There were adequate systems for reviewing and investigating when things went wrong. For example, we saw evidence the service identified lessons, shared learning and took action as necessary to improve safety.

•The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. For example, we saw evidence that audits were used to drive improvements in care and treatment and to ensure delivery in accordance with evidence-based guidelines.

•Staff involved and treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

•Patients could access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.

•The leadership, governance and culture promoted the delivery of high-quality person-centred care.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

7 February 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of the Jenna Clinic in Camden on 7 February 2018 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions.

The location had not been inspected previously, but another location operated by Jenna (UK) Ltd in Peterborough had been inspected in December 2017, when we identified issues relating to the key questions of Safe and Well-led. The inspection report can be accessed on the following page of our website – www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-647512853

Our inspection of the Jenna Clinic in Camden was carried out to check that the actions taken by the provider at the Peterborough location had been implemented in respect of the Camden location and to confirm that that legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 were being met. Our inspection team was lead by a CQC inspector and included a second inspector, a CQC medicines manager and a GP specialist adviser. At our inspections we consider 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.

At this inspection we found:

  • There were processes to ensure that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines. However, there was scope for extending the range of clinical auditing relevant to the services provided to identify where improvements could be made.
  • Following the recent departure of the general practitioner, the clinic had introduced measures relating to test results. Patients were informed that they should arrange for their test results to be reviewed by a registered clinician for advice and any necessary treatment.
  • The clinic had systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the clinic learned from them and improved its processes.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care and treatment when they needed it.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review and extend the range of clinical auditing relevant to the services provided.
  • Review the current test results procedure to ensure that suitable arrangements are in place so that results are checked by registered clinicians and that patients are given appropriate further healthcare advice.
  • Review the arrangements for patients with hearing impairment, such as obtaining a portable induction loop.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice