• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Frant Road Clinic Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

65 Frant Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN2 5LH (01892) 619797

Provided and run by:
Frant Road Clinic 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 Frant Road Clinic Limited 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 Frant Road Clinic Limited, you can give feedback on this service.

16 October 2019

During a routine inspection

Frant Road Clinic Limited is operated by Frant Road Clinic Ltd. It is an independent ophthalmic clinic located in Tunbridge Wells, Kent, providing treatment and care for various eye conditions. The clinic offers a range of treatments and minor surgery for conditions such as diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, corneal disease, age-related macular degeneration. Laser (non-refractive) therapies are sometimes used as treatment. There are only day case procedures performed at Frant Rd Clinic and children are not treated here.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced part of the inspection on 16 October 2019.

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.

We rated it as Good overall.

We found good practices:

  • The clinic was spacious, visibly clean and tidy.
  • There were safe arrangements for the management of waste and clinical specimens to prevent accidental injury or cross contamination.
  • During the reporting period, there were no incidences of healthcare acquired infection. Staff followed protocols to manage medicines safely and all medicines were stored and administered safely and securely.
  • Patient records were well maintained and clear to follow and securely stored.
  • Consultants and staff understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance. Consent practices were in line with guidance and best practice.
  • Patients had timely access to initial assessment, diagnosis and treatment.
  • The clinic was small but well-staffed for its needs. All staff had worked at the clinic for many years.
  • Staff worked well together and were happy working at the clinic.
  • There were no patients on a waiting list. We saw that the clinic was able to allocate patient appointments in a timely manner.
  • Patient feedback was positive, and many patients had attended the clinic repeatedly because they appreciated the service received.
  • It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care.

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

  • Although staff were trained in safeguarding, the safeguarding lead had not undertaken the correct level of training for this role.
  • There was no repeat process or policy to state whether staff member’s Disclosure and Barring (DBS) checks were valid after a given number of years of service.
  • The service lacked a robust and regular audit system and a seamless way of measuring patient outcomes.
  • Some policies and procedures contained incorrect detail and needed to be revised.
  • This was a small service with prompt access to the provider but were no regular formal meetings for staff to participate in.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South East)

17 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five patients and all three staff members who were on duty. The front line staff comprised the surgeon, the nurse and the receptionist.

Patients felt their privacy and dignity were respected. They were involved in their treatment to the extent that they wanted to be.

Patients were very positive about the quality of care they received. '100%', 'excellent' the way you are treated' and 'can't find any fault' were among the comments made to us.

On our inspection in August 2012 we found that some staff training had not been regularly updated. At this inspection we saw that this had been rectified.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided the patients.

Records were complete, patient confidentially was respected and they were stored securely.

7 September 2012

During a routine inspection

Patients were very pleased with the quality of care they received. One patient said that she believed her sight had been partially saved because the surgeon had attended to her emergency on his day off.

One patient said 'Thank you for the care, trouble and technical expertise'.