The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Dr Ito Clinic

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

96 Harley Street, London, W1G 7HY (020) 7637 5560

Provided and run by:
Takashi Ito

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

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dr Ito Clinic on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Dr Ito Clinic, you can give feedback on this service.

23 August 2022

During a routine inspection

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

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

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 Dr Ito Clinic as part of our inspection programme. This was the service’s first inspection where they were given a rating.

Dr Ito Clinic is an independent provider of medical services specialising in pain management. The provider is an individual provider who is in day to day management of the service. Therefore there is no requirement for a registered manager to be in place.

During the inspection we did not speak directly with any patients, however we did receive feedback from patients about the service through our website. Feedback was received from 16 patients and was wholly positive.

Our key findings were:

  • The service was providing safe care. There were clear systems for managing risks.
  • The service was providing effective care. The effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided was reviewed. There was evidence of quality improvement activity.
  • The service was providing caring services.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Feedback from people who used the service was positive.
  • The service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations. People were supported to access the service when they wanted to. There were systems and processes in place to manage feedback.
  • The service was providing well-led care. Leaders have the capacity and skills to deliver high-quality, sustainable care. They demonstrated a vision to deliver high quality care and promote good outcomes for patients

Whilst we did not find any breaches of the regulations, the areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the provision of sepsis training for all staff.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

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

16 May 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 16 May 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 consultation, examination and treatment for the management of pain for adults over the age of eighteen.

We received feedback from 17 patients who used the service; all 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 their processes.
  • 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.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they could access care when they needed it.
  • Information on how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • There was a focus on learning and improvement.

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

  • Review service procedures to ensure patient identity is checked before treatment.
  • Review process for recording patient records so they are available in English for continuity of care.
  • Review procedures in place for communication with patients’ NHS doctors where appropriate.
  • Review service procedures for staff training.
  • Review service procedures to maximise the benefits of quality improvement activity.
  • Review options to make reasonable adjustments to improve access to the service.