The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

The Clear Ear Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Flat 3 Lister House, 11-12 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 9ST (020) 7495 6314

Provided and run by:
Clear Ear Clinic Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 22 April 2026 (Site visit).

We carried out this announced comprehensive assessment as part of our regulatory functions. The service was previously inspected in October 2019 and was previously registered at a different address.

The Clear Ear Clinic is a private independent clinic based in central London.

The service provided appointment with ENT consultants and also specialises in ear wax removal by microsuction. There are no surgical procedures carried out at this clinic. (ENT is a branch of medicine focused on diagnosing and treating conditions of the Ear, Nose, and Throat).

The service provides care and treatment to both children and adults.

SAFE: The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. However, we found some gaps in recruitment checks. Most staff received training relevant to their role. However, we found that some doctors had not received appropriate safeguarding children level 3 training relevant to their roles. All staff had received regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

EFFECTIVE: People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people who took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

CARING: People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected their privacy and dignity. They treated them as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and treatment. The service supported staff wellbeing.

RESPONSIVE: People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care. A few days after the assessment, the service informed us they had registered with the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) and provided an updated copy of the complaints policy reflecting that arrangement.

WELL-LED: The service had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive. Staff were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. However, we found that governance was not fully effective in some areas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

28 October 2019

During a routine inspection

CQC inspected the service on 13 July 2017. In line with CQC policy at the time, the service was not rated as a result of that inspection. We asked the provider to make improvements regarding their understanding of the duty of candour, infection control, medicines management, safeguarding training, risk management and governance. We checked these areas as part of this comprehensive inspection and found improvements had been made with regards to those specific failings at the inspection of 28 October 2019.

The Clear Ear Clinic is a stand-alone aural care service which specialises in ear wax removal by microsuction.

Feedback we received from patients who have used the service was positive. We received 15 completed comment cards and spoke with two patients during the inspection.

Our key findings were :

  • The service had systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety. However, we have said the provider should review and improve its processes for significant events management and the taking of medical histories.
  • The service assessed need and delivered care in line with current legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance.
  • The service treated patients with kindness, respect and compassion.
  • The service organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients were able to access services within an appropriate timescale and complaints were managed appropriately.
  • There was a clear leadership structure in place, and staff told us that they felt able to raise concerns and were confident that these would be addressed.
  • The service had a governance framework in place, however we have said the provider should review and improve quality monitoring activity, including clinical audits.

Although we did not find any breaches of the regulations, we have said the provider should:

  • Review and improve its current arrangements for significant events to ensure there is a service specific policy and procedure in place. 
  • Review the questionnaire currently in use to ensure a comprehensive medical history is taken so that staff have the complete information required before providing care and treatment
  • Review quality improvement activity, including clinical audits.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

13 July 2017

During a routine inspection

The Clear Ear Clinic is operated by Clear Ear Clinic Limited. The service has no inpatient beds. Facilities include two clinic rooms, with operating microscopes and low-pressure suction systems to remove ear wax.

The service provides appointments on an outpatient basis to patients. We inspected the service using appropriate key lines of enquiry from our framework for outpatients and diagnostic imaging.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the inspection on 13 July 2017.

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.

Services we do not rate

We regulate clinics that provide treatment on an outpatient basis but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The environment throughout the clinic was visibly clean and tidy.

  • Equipment was readily available and tested regularly to ensure it was suitable for use on patients.

  • Stock medicines and prescription pads were managed and stored appropriately. Nursing staff had been supported to become nurse prescribers.

  • There were sufficient nursing and medical staff. We observed good working relationships between all grades of staff and professional disciplines, with communication with GPs initiated where necessary.

  • Staff had awareness of what actions they would take in the event of a major incident, such as a fire.

  • The clinic was open six days a week, with evening and weekend lists to suit patient need. Patients were able to access care and treatment in a timely way.

  • All staff received appraisals and were happy with the quality of these and their clinical professional development opportunities.

  • We observed systems in place to obtain consent from patients before carrying out a procedure or providing treatment. Patients were given sufficient information and time to give informed consent to the microsuction procedure.

  • Interactions between staff and patients were observed to be positive across the clinic, with the patient at the centre of the care. All patients we spoke to and feedback we gathered was complimentary about the staff and the clinic as a whole.

  • The needs of individuals with differing complex needs were well considered and largely met by the service. A telephone translation service was available. Clinicians were sensitive to the potential emotional needs of patients.

  • There were a low number of complaints. When complaints were received they were used to identify learning and improve patient experience.

  • The clinic had an overall vision and strategy and communicated this to staff, enabling them to feel involved in the development of the service.

  • Nursing and medical staff thought that the registered manager was supportive and approachable. They felt able to raise concerns.

  • Feedback was sought from staff and the public to develop and improve the service, as appropriate.

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

  • Not all staff were fully aware of their responsibilities under the duty of candour regulation.

  • Hand hygiene practices were variable, with staff not always washing their hands between patients, as per policy.

  • An expired vial of adrenalin was found in the resuscitation bag. This was immediately highlighted to the registered manager, who removed it. We were shown evidence that it was replaced following inspection.

  • Clinical staff were not trained in the appropriate level of safeguarding, although they could describe how to recognise and escalate concerns. The provider had already started to action this by training all registered nurses post-inspection.

  • Some staff had not familiarised themselves with some clinical policies, and some had not been updated since October 2015.

  • There was no formalised risk register, with risk assessment forms being used instead. Some risks identified during inspection did not have a corresponding risk assessment. Risks were not graded according to severity or likelihood of event.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with two requirement notices. Details are at the end of the report.

Professor Edward Baker

Chief Inspector of Hospitals