- Independent doctor
The Clear Ear Clinic
Assessment report published 7 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
People were positive about the quality of their care and treatment. The service encouraged and valued feedback from people who use the service. For example, feedback obtained by the provider which was reviewed as part of this assessment indicated patient feedback was positive.
We received feedback from 3 people who had used the service. They expressed satisfaction with the care and treatment provided, stating they were well informed about what to expect from the treatments. People also reported that staff were professional, knowledgeable, and friendly. Additionally, they said that the fees were transparent and clearly explained in advance.
We received excellent feedback from patients via the CQC website.