Nuyu Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this registered provider since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. The provider had established processes to improve services based on learning, for example through investigation and learning from incidents.

The provider had procedures for identifying, investigating and taking corrective actions to improve. They told us that since they started operating, they had not received any formal complaints.

The provider had recorded 5 incidents in 2026. These had been investigated, appropriate action taken, and any relevant changes implemented. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There was a programme of audits in place which included prescribing and infection prevention and control.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

There were processes in place for obtaining and recording information from people at the point of registration.

People were asked for consent to share details of their consultation and any medicines prescribed, with their own GP. Before providing treatment, the provider ensured they had adequate knowledge of the person’s health, any relevant test results and their medicines history. There was a clear pathway for the receipt and management of test results and correspondence. Referrals and test results were managed in a timely way.

There were policies and processes in place to safeguard people and protect them from harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Training in adult and children safeguarding was in place.

The service provided care and treatment to adults only and had an adult safeguarding policy in place. However, as children may occasionally be present on the premises, the provider introduced a child safeguarding policy following the assessment. Safeguarding policies contained relevant contact details and set out the processes that should be followed if a safeguarding concern was to be identified.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They undertook comprehensive consultations during which they discussed with people their medical history and ongoing symptoms. People were advised on any risks related to their treatment.

Due to the nature of the service, no medicines were stored on site. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to manage the risks associated with not holding emergency medicines. A community defibrillator was available directly across the street, providing ready access to emergency equipment if required.

There was appropriate training in place to manage risks, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation and anaphylaxis training.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider operated from a rented room within a building that was primarily occupied and managed by a separate, independent healthcare service. The provider told us that the management team from the other service were responsible for overall health and safety maintenance of the premises. We saw there were some processes in place for health and safety risk management. For example, equipment had been calibrated and there was regular fire alarm testing. However, there was no evidence available at the time of the assessment to demonstrate routine electrical maintenance. In addition, fire alarm and emergency lighting maintenance had been completed after the assessment had been announced, and the provider could not clarify when these systems had previously been serviced. Furthermore, the provider had not had any involvement in fire evacuation drills, and water temperature monitoring for Legionella did not demonstrate that the appropriate temperatures were being measured. After the assessment the provider implemented a premises governance policy to ensure that going forward there was clear oversight of premises-related checks, maintenance and safety arrangements.

The practitioner was appropriately qualified and trained, with relevant checks and documentation in place, including a Disclosure and Barring Service check and evidence of immunisation. They maintained their knowledge and skills through ongoing continuing professional development, including regular attendance at relevant courses and conferences. They had access to external peer support, including opportunities to discuss individual and complex cases with other healthcare professionals. They were also subject to external professional revalidation.

A recruitment policy was in place should the provider choose to employ staff in the future.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

Cleaning schedules were in place, and infection prevention and control (IPC) audits were completed.

We found the premises to be generally clean, tidy and well maintained. There was however some high-level dust on cupboards in the consultation room.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Prior to the assessment, the provider used handwritten prescriptions when required but had recently moved to an electronic prescribing system. Although no electronic prescriptions had yet been issued, we were able to review the process and see how prescriptions issued through the system would be overseen. An electronic prescription log was maintained to account for all handwritten prescriptions previously issued. A serial numbering system was used to ensure prescriptions could be matched to the appropriate person and corresponding entry in the prescription log. All records checked during the inspection were correct and matched the prescription log and clinical notes.

One of the medicines this provider prescribes is unlicensed. Treating people with unlicensed medicines carries higher risk and greater legal and ethical implications as well as increased accountability compared to treating people with licensed medicines, because unlicensed medicines may not have been assessed for safety, quality and efficacy. These medicines are outside the MHRA medicines licensing process, so pharmacists and prescribers must take additional steps to assure themselves of the quality, safety and efficacy of all the unlicensed medicines that they prescribe, purchase, make and supply. The provider ensured that people prescribed an unlicensed medicine underwent the required baseline and ongoing blood monitoring. Records reviewed demonstrated that prescribing did not commence until the relevant monitoring had been completed and the results had been assessed as satisfactory, confirming that it was clinically appropriate to prescribe.

People and GPs were provided with comprehensive information about treatment, including potential side effects, consent to treatment and the rationale for clinical decisions. This supported people to make informed decisions about their care and ensured relevant information was available to other healthcare professionals involved in their treatment. An automated recall system was in place to identify when follow-up was required and ensure appointments took place within the appropriate timeframes.

Due to the nature of the service, no medicines were stored on site.