Manchester Menopause Hive

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 was the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC in May 2025.

This key question has been rated as Good.

At Manchester Menopause Hive (MMH) we found clear and well-understood processes ensured staff acted to keep people safe.

Managers investigated all reported incidents to reduce the likelihood of them happening again. Learning was shared with staff and systems and processes were reviewed and developed to improve the safety of the service.

Consent to procedures was well managed because people were fully engaged in discussions about their choice of treatment and were given opportunities to reflect on information provided.

There were sufficient suitably trained and qualified staff to promote safety and ensure people’s needs were met.

The environment was well-maintained. Medical equipment was correctly calibrated and services to ensure accurate readings and so promote safety.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Feedback from and discussions with the manager and staff indicated that all significant events and changes were shared with all staff.

MMH team discussed the care and treatment of clients at regular meetings. This included highlighting, reviewing and documenting where improvements could be made.

Staff stated openness was an essential element for keeping people safe and also assisted in driving continual improvements in outcomes.

The provider had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events.

There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and processes in place for ensuring that if things went wrong, staff apologised, and people were given the support needed.

These processes meant learning from incidents and complaints resulted in changes and improved care for others.

Safety through learning and changes were made in response to medical safety alerts. All information and learning was shared with staff who described changes made as a result of learning from various sources.

Records and feedback reports showed that staff received regular supervision and training. This included GP’s having their consultations and treatment plans peer reviewed by another menopause specialist GP. This assisted with learning and allowed for a second opinion and additional treatment suggestions.

Audits were completed to ensure staff followed all processes as required. Training was updated to align with any changes to processes.

The service collaborated with people to establish and maintain safe systems of care. There were robust processes in place to register and monitor what treatments people had received.

There was a clear pathway for sending samples for pathology and tracking for receiving and reporting results. This included updating the patient with information and liaising with the patient’s GP if they consented.

Initial consultation forms were detailed, and care and treatment were governed by best practice protocols and standard operating procedures. We saw that checks were made to ensure these protocols were followed and appropriate action taken if not.

MMH had clear processes in place which were understood and followed by staff to safeguard people from abuse. The safeguarding policy aligned with general best practice information. Staff described the questions asked to ensure that signs and symptoms of concern were identified and investigated if apparent. The service used the NHS Safeguarding App to ensure their policy was based on best practice. The App also provided guidance about the steps to take if abuse was suspected.

All clinical staff had had up-to-date safeguarding level 3 training and non clinical had appropriate safeguarding level 1 training.

The service collaborated with people to understand and manage risks by acting holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Processes in place promoted people’s involvement in their plans of care. Robust initial assessments were completed. This included assessment of people’s physical, psychological, lifestyle and other personal circumstances. On-line information about the consultations and treatments was available so that potential clients could decide whether the service might meet their needs prior to their initial appointments. Face-to-face consultations were individualised, and people were given as much time and information as they needed to decide on their course of treatment. People were also provided with leaflets and a follow-up letter that included information about potential side-effects and timescales for experiencing positive improvements.

Follow-up phone calls were included in the cost of the initial care and treatment plan where clinically appropriate.

Processes were in place to detect and control potential risks in the care environment used by MMH. The service is situated in a shared clinic and rented by the provider. A service level agreement was in place for some aspects of health and safety such as emergency equipment and fire safety.

Safety checks such as fire alarm tests and evacuations were managed by the owner discussion and checks of records confirmed MMH staff were fully informed and knew what actions to take if the consulting rooms needed to be evacuated. Fire safety information and health and safety information was on display on the premises.

The lead GP ensured staff completed the appropriate clinical training for the care and treatment provided by Manchester Menopause Hive. Feedback from people who used the service confirmed they were impressed with the level of knowledge and insight shown by staff. Staff were employed using formal processes including completion of disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks. References from previous employers were also obtained. Staff were appropriately appraised and supervised to ensure they applied new learning and were competent in their roles. Regular meetings ensured the team worked closely together to provide a safe and effective service.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection.

The leaders took robust steps to assess and manage the risk of infection. Consulting rooms were cleaned after each consultation.

A cleaning firm was employed, and they had put cleaning schedules in place. We noted that equipment was stored appropriately, and all areas appeared clean and well-maintained.

There was ample and readily available personal protection equipment (PPE).

Clinical waste was stored and collected by a clinical waste company. The reports confirmed boxes for used sharp instruments such as hypodermic needles and other waste were safely secured and packaged for collection.

We saw that clinical bins were locked and secured.

The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and updates about the use of appropriate medicines and equipment.

Staff followed established processes to ensure people with specific risks were identified and provided with recommended advice. Staff said they received regular training on managing the medicines prescribed by MMH.

Staff knew where emergency medicines were stored and how to access these if required. We saw that staff managed these medicines safely, the stock was regularly checked including the expiry dates.

Leaders confirmed that they did not dispense medicines to patients. All medicines prescribed by MMH GPs were dispensed from a pharmacy service and delivered direct to the patient.

Leaders ensured that best practice relating to on-line prescribing was adhered to and monitored for compliance. Risk assessments and protocols were in place to ensure off-license prescribing was fully explained and agreed to by the patient and clinically justified. Information was always shared, following consent, with the patient’s own NHS GP.