The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: MASTA Travel Clinic - Kings Cross

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Battle Bridge House, 300-306 Grays Inn Road, London, WC1X 8DU 0330 100 4200

Provided and run by:
MASTA Limited

All Inspections

1 August 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 9 July 2018 – the provider was not rated at this stage in line with our methodology at the time.)

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 MASTA Travel Clinic – Kings Cross as part of our inspection programme 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.

Our key findings were:

  • There were concerns regarding the cleanliness and hygiene of the premises and we were not assured there were effective systems in place to prevent and protect people from a healthcare-associated infection.
  • Patients received an individualised travel health brief which was tailored to their specific needs and travel plans. The comprehensive health brief outlined a risk assessment; all travel vaccinations that were either required or recommended, and other relevant health information related to their destinations.
  • 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 all locations.
  • The provider ensured care and treatment was delivered according to evidence based guidelines and up to date travel health information.
  • Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment provided by the service.
  • There were arrangements in place to deal with medical emergencies.
  • Vaccines, medicines and emergency equipment were safely managed. There were clear systems in place relating to stock control.
  • The provider encouraged and valued feedback from patients and staff.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • There was a leadership structure in place with clear responsibilities and roles of accountability to support good governance and management.

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

  • Maintain appropriate standards of hygiene for premises and equipment.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review arrangement for chaperones requested by patients on the day of their appointment.
  • Review the clinic’s signage arrangements with the host provider so that it is easier for patients to locate the service.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

9 July 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 9 July 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 – King’s Cross is a private clinic providing travel health advice, travel and non-travel vaccines, to children and adults. It is licenced to administer yellow fever vaccines. The clinic is registered with the Care Quality Commission under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide the regulated activities Diagnostic and screening procedures and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The registered manager for the location is the senior nurse, one of two nurses who regularly work there. 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 an individualised travel health brief which was tailored to their specific needs and travel plans. The health brief outlined a risk assessment; all travel vaccinations that were either required or recommended, and specific health information including additional health risks related to their destinations with advice on how to manage common illnesses.
  • 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.
  • Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment provided by the service.
  • Infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures were in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. However, there was scope for more detailed IPC audits to be carried out.
  • There were arrangements in place to deal with medical emergencies, but the location did not have a supply of children’s defibrillator pads.
  • Vaccines, medicines and emergency equipment were safely managed. There were clear audit trails relating to stock control.
  • Consultations were comprehensive and undertaken in a professional manner.
  • The provider encouraged and valued feedback from patients and staff
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • There was a leadership structure in place with clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management. Staff felt supported by managers and worked well together as a team.

There were areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Review the process for carrying out infection prevention and control audits.
  • Review the arrangements for dealing with medical emergencies, particularly in relation to children using the service.

Professor Steve Field

CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice