You are here

Archived: MASTA Travel Clinic - Richmond Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 Nov 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at MASTA (Medical Advisory Service for Travellers Abroad) Travel Clinic - Richmond on 26 November 2019 as part of our current inspection programme. We previously inspected this service on 9 October 2018 using our previous methodology, where we did not apply ratings.

MASTA Travel Clinic - Richmond provides travel health services to both adults and children travelling for business or leisure. The service is a designated yellow fever vaccination centre. Since October 2019 the service has also provided a yearly flu vaccination service.

The service also provides certain corporate healthcare services which are not regulated by CQC. This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some general exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. MASTA Travel Clinic – Richmond, services are provided to patients under arrangements made by their employer. These types of arrangements are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, at this service, we were only able to inspect the services which are not arranged for patients by their employers.

Services are available to any fee-paying patient. All services incur a consultation charge, and treatment and intervention charges vary, depending on the service provided. Information from the service indicates that, at the time of the inspection, an average of eight patients per day are seen.

The lead nurse based at the site is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received 13 completed CQC comment cards, all of which were fully positive about the service. Patients commented that the nurse at the service was caring, informative and respectful. Other comments stated the service was efficient, the environment was clean and comfortable, and that the nurse worked well with child patients.

Our key findings were:

  • The service provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for recording, reporting and learning from significant events and incidents. The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents happened, the service learned from them and reviewed their processes to implement improvements.
  • There were clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse, and for identifying and mitigating risks of health and safety.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The service organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients said that they could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines and best practice.
  • Patients told us that staff treated them with kindness and respect and that they felt involved in discussions about their options.
  • Patient satisfaction with the service was high.
  • Staff had the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The service took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.

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

Inspection carried out on 9 October 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 9 October 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

MASTA Travel Clinic – Richmond provides travel vaccinations and travel health advice to both adults and children, either via a pre-booked appointment or as a walk-in service. The service is located within a Flight Centre travel agency and operates on Tuesdays and Saturdays.

The location’s lead nurse is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

  • Each patient received individualised care and treatment, taking into account their travel plans, medical history and preferences. In addition to providing travel vaccinations, the service also provided patients with health advice and information specific to their travel itinery.
  • The clinic had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. The provider discussed any incidents with the wider corporate team, where lessons learned were shared to improve their processes across locations.
  • The provider ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines and up to date travel health information.
  • Processes were in place and well executed to ensure that infection prevention and control risks were adequately managed. Equipment and medicines were available in order to respond to a medical emergency, with the exception of a defibrillator, which the provider’s risk assessment had determined was not required; staff were aware of the location of the nearest public defibrillators.
  • The provider encouraged and valued feedback from patients and staff.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect; however, there was no language translation service available to assist patients who did not speak English.
  • There was a leadership structure in place with clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management; however, in relation to recruitment checks, which were carried-out by head-office staff, the service’s policy was not always followed.
  • Staff felt supported by managers and worked well together as a team.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Review the process for checking that adults providing consent to treatment on behalf of children have appropriate authority to do so.
  • Review the process for ensuring that all necessary pre-employment checks have been completed before a new member of staff starts work at the location.
  • Review the information contained in their complaints policy and ensure that information about how to make a complaint is easily available to patients.
  • Review the need for a translation service to be available for patients who did not speak English.
  • Regularly review the risk assessment in respect of the need for a defibrillator, to ensure that the assessed risk remains current.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice