The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Pure Sports Medicine (Canary Wharf)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Cabot Place, London, E14 4QT

Provided and run by:
Pure Sports Medicine Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Pure Sports Medicine (Canary Wharf) 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 Pure Sports Medicine (Canary Wharf), you can give feedback on this service.

30 July 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall.

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 Pure Sports Medicine (Canary Wharf) on 30 July 2019. This inspection was undertaken as part of our programme of inspecting and rating independent doctor services registered with the Commission. This inspection was the first rated inspection of this service.

We conducted an unrated inspection of this provider in March 2018. At this time, we found the service to have effective systems and processes to ensure good governance of the service, clinical staff had the skills and knowledge to be able to deliver care and treatment effectively and safely, and users of the service were provided with information, advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.

We received 40 ‘share your experience’ comments as part of our inspection of the service. On the day of inspection, due to the timing of the inspection we did not get the opportunity to speak with any users of the service.

Our key findings were:

  • Staff had been trained with the skills and knowledge to deliver care and treatment. Clinical staff were aware of current evidence-based guidance.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Information about the range of services and fees were available.
  • The service conducted quality improvement activity to improve client outcomes.
  • The service gave clients the ability to view their treatment plan online via secure access.
  • There was a system in place to receive safety alerts issued by relevant government departments.
  • Client feedback was important to the service and was used to improve services provided.
  • Clinical information with other relevant healthcare providers was shared in a timely manner (subject to patient consent).
  • Staff told us that they were happy to work for the service.
  • The service had an administrative governance structure in place, which was adhered to through a range of policies and procedures which were reviewed regularly.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

​Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

15 March 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 15 March 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.

Background

Pure Sports Medicine Canary Wharf is part of a chain of sports medical clinics situated within London. The clinics provide a number of services including physiological and lifestyle assessments, physiotherapy, podiatry, tendon clinics, appointments with sports clinicians and osteopathy. Following an assessment process, clients will undergo a consultation with a clinician to discuss the findings of the results and any recommended lifestyle changes or treatment planning. Clients seen at the service are either private clients or employees of organisations who are provided with health and wellbeing services as part of their employee benefit package. The services are provided to adults and children privately and are not commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS).

The service is situated in a rented single floor building, which has consultation rooms, a patient waiting area, a gym, changing facilities, staffing areas and treatment rooms.

The service manager 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.

Pure Sports Medicine is registered to conduct the following regulated activities under the Health and Social Care Act 2008:-

  • Treatment of disease,disorder and injury
  • Diagnostic and screening procedures

Prior to our visit, the service was provided with feedback cards for their customers to complete with their views about the service by completing comments cards. No feedback cards were completed prior or during our inspection of the service.

Our key findings were:

  • Staff had been trained with the skills and knowledge to deliver care and treatment.
  • The service conducted quality improvement activities to improve patient outcomes.
  • The service had systems to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
  • Clients were provided with information about their health and with advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Information about the range of services and fees were available.
  • The service had an administrative governance structure in place, which was adhered to through a range of policies and procedures which were reviewed regularly. Clinical governance systems were also in place to ensure quality service provision.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients.

14 February 2014

During a routine inspection

Pure Sports Medicine provided a specialist service by doctors and therapists for sports injuries and musculoskeletal conditions. We were able to speak with one person who said, "the care here is first rate." One person from the latest feedback survey left the comment, "the staff are superb."

People were asked for their consent before they received care and treatment and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs. Their care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual assessment.

People's needs were assessed and a detailed medical history was taken from each person and discussed prior to their scan. Care was planned and delivered in line with their individual plan.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment by staff who had been trained to deal with medical emergencies.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. The one person we spoke with told us, "it is easy to see someone here if you want. They are very professional."

There was a complaints policy in place and people were given information on how to provide feedback about the service. We saw written feedback from people which was positive about the service.

5 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We did not speak to people on this occasion because there was no one using the service available to speak with us when we visited.

We viewed the latest patient survey published in May 2012. The results of that survey were almost entirely positive about the diagnostic, screening procedures and treatment options that were available. Feedback included positive comment about the clarity of information provided by staff and the way in which consultation and treatment was carried out.