The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Woodford Medical Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

8 Upper Wimpole Street, London, W1G 6LH (020) 7486 4526

Provided and run by:
Woodford Medical Limited

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

All Inspections

2 August 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced focused inspection at Woodford Medical Limited on 2 August 2023, to follow up on breaches of regulations identified at our inspection in November 2022, when we rated the service as Requires improvement overall.

This inspection focused on issues relating to the key questions of Safe and Well-led.

This service is now rated as Good overall.

The two key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? Good

Are services well-led? Good

Are services effective? Previously rated good

Are services caring? Previously rated good

Are services responsive? Previously rated good

At our inspection in November 2022, we identified issues relating to the key questions Safe and Well-led:

  • The provider could not demonstrate that a risk assessment had been carried out to ensure that an appropriate range of emergency medical equipment and emergency medicines were available on site.
  • The provider had not ensured infection prevention and control audits were carried out regularly.
  • The provider had failed to assure themselves the issues identified by the legionella risk assessment were addressed by the premises landlord.
  • The provider could not demonstrate that clinicians’ required training had adequately covered their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and information governance.

These constituted a breach of Regulation 12 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and we served a notice on the provider requiring it to take action to comply with the regulation. The provider sent us a plan of the actions it intended to take, and we carried out this inspection to check on what had been implemented.

Our key findings were:

  • A risk assessment had been conducted relating to emergency equipment and medicines; suitable stocks were being maintained and monitored.
  • Regular infection prevention and control audits had been implemented, with the findings actioned, including in relation to legionella risk management.
  • There was evidence that clinicians had undertaken training covering the Mental Capacity Act and information governance.

We found the provider had taken appropriate action to comply with the requirements of Regulation 12 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We have revised the ratings accordingly.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Health Care

22 November 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Requires improvement overall. (Not previously inspected)

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? – Requires improvement

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Woodford Medical Limited as part of our inspection programme.

Woodford Medical Limited is an independent health service which specialises in aesthetic medicine. Most of the procedures the service carries out are not regulated activities and so do not require registration with the Care Quality Commission, with the exception of thread lifts which are surgical procedures.

Our key findings were:

  • The service was providing generally safe care however measures in place to manage risks were not comprehensive. For example measures around emergency medicines and equipment and infection control did not ensure the associated risks were safely managed.
  • 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.
  • Leaders had 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. However governance arrangements and processes for managing risks, issues and performance were not always effective.

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.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure that staff are aware of how to access service policies as and when required.
  • Ensure that it maintains a comprehensive set of policies, for example there was no Duty of Candour Policy at the time of the inspection.

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

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

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

27 November 2012

During a routine inspection

It was not possible to speak to people who use the service as no one had an appointment booked at the time of the inspection. However, we looked at recent testimonials from people who use the service on the provider's website and the 2012 feedback summary report. These indicated that people were satisfied with the quality of the care provided. One person had written "I can't rate this clinic highly enough for standard of care and professionalism".

Information leaflets on the different procedures provided at the clinic were sent to people before their appointment. Every person had a consultation with a therapist or doctor before the procedure was carried to assess their suitability for the treatment. A medical history was taken for each person and staff told us that they would advise a person when a treatment might not be appropriate.

There were systems in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies and any adverse incidents were logged and investigated. Managers undertook annual audits on patient records, complaints, incidents and staff appraisals and ensured policies and procedures were regularly reviewed. The results of these audits were used to produce a summary report on the clinic. Staff received appropriate professional development and the doctors who worked at the service were appraised by another doctor independent who was external to the clinic.