• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Bond Street

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

11 South Molton Street, London, W1K 5QL 07507 880406

Provided and run by:
Nomad Health Technologies Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

28 September 2023

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection November 2021 – Good with Safe as Requires Improvement).

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

We previously carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Bond Street in November 2021 as part of our inspection programme. The service was rated good overall. However, the service was rated as requires improvement for providing a safe service and a requirement notice was issued. The service was rated good for providing an effective, caring, responsive and well led service. You can read the full report by selecting the ‘all reports’ section for Bond Street on our website www.cqc.org.uk

On 28 September 2023 we carried out a site visit to confirm that the service had carried out the required improvement plans following the last inspection.

We found that the service had put measures in place for ongoing improvement and that the areas identified in the previously issued requirement notice had been addressed.

We based our judgement on the quality of care at this service on a combination of:

  • What we found when we visited the provider;
  • Information sent to us by the provider prior to the site visit; and
  • Information from our ongoing monitoring of data about services.

We have rated safe as Good because:

  • Fire safety issues had been addressed;
  • Infection prevention and control issues regarding a portable sink in the consulting room had been resolved;
  • Prescribed medicines were correctly labelled.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

29 November 2021

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection June 2018 – unrated).

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires improvement

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Bond Street as part of our inspection programme to rate all providers of independent health services.

The service provides comprehensive travel health services in addition to other services which are out of scope of CQC regulation including covid 19 testing and occupational health services.

Frances Rea is currently the CQC registered manager. However, we have received an application to cancellation Frances Rea’s registration as registered manager and have been informed that Jason Gibbs (Head of Medical services) is in the process of applying to be the registered manager of this location. 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:

  • The provider had systems and processes in place to address most risks; including those related to recruitment of staff and safeguarding. However, there was a lack of oversight or action to address risks including fire risks. We also saw that here were minor infection control risks and a faulty sink in one of the clinic rooms.
  • Medicines were managed appropriately although we found that labelling for dispensed medicines did not comply with current guidance.
  • There was appropriate emergency equipment on site and the service had risk assessed the absence of a defibrillator and had arrangements in place to access one located short walk from the clinic. .
  • There were systems for managing significant events and responding to patient safety alerts.
  • Clinical care was delivered in line with travel health guidelines. The provider had initiated an audit of the clinic and had reviewed the consultations of staff who worked there.
  • All staff had received appropriate training. GDPR training completed by staff included information governance, however this was not documented in staff records we looked at.
  • The provider had newly established systems in place to gather feedback from patients, including complaints. Feedback we reviewed on external websites was largely positive.
  • There was a strong focus on staff wellbeing and staff had the opportunity to feed into organisational decision making.
  • There was a clear vision and set of business plans to aid the organisation in achieving its goals.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

(Please see the specific details on action required at the end of this report).

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Consider documented information governance training.
  • Consider replacement of the faulty foot pump sink in one of the consulting rooms.
  • Continue with plans to undertake a programme of clinical audit.
  • Utilise the new client survey to gather feedback from service users and use this to improve services.

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

20 June 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 20 June 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.

The provider offers face to face consultations for immunisations including childhood, travel vaccinations and travel medical advice.

We received feedback from 17 patients who used the service; most were positive about the service experienced. Many patients reported that the service provided high quality care.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the service learned from them and improved.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment is delivered according to evidence based guidelines.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Services were provided to meet the needs of patients.
  • Patient feedback for the services offered were consistently positive.
  • There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.

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

  • Review procedures in place in relation to infection prevention and control and monitoring of ambient temperature of rooms where medicines are stored.
  • Review service procedures for staff training.
  • Improve access for patients whose first language is not English.