We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bristol Urology Associates 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 Bristol Urology Associates, you can give feedback on this service.
This service is rated as Good overall. This is the services first inspection since the implementation of the Health and Social Care Action 2014 regulations. The service received an inspection in 2014 under the previous format and deemed to meet the standards of which it was inspected against.
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 Bristol Urology Associates. We inspected this service as part of our inspection programme.
Bristol Urology Associates provides a comprehensive range of private urology services. They offer specialist assessment and treatment for general urological conditions including cancer and minor investigations, for example, cystoscopy (examination of the bladder and urethra using a cystoscope, tube-like instrument with a lens or a light for viewing), trans-rectal ultrasound, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) blood test (a blood test used to screen for prostate cancer) and urinary flow measurement (a diagnostic test assessing how well the urinary track functions).
There was no registered manager in place at the time of the inspection, however, the provider was in the process of registering one of the consultants for this role. 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:
However we found no breaches of regulations the areas where the provider should make improvements are:
Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA
Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services
We had found that there was no evidence of the local multi-agency safeguarding policies and procedures for either vulnerable adults or children. This meant that people were not protected from abuse because guidance about safeguarding people from abuse was not accessible to all staff.
We had also found that there were ineffective arrangements in place to demonstrate that staff were trained, competent and supported to provide safe and appropriate care to people. The provider wrote to us and informed us they would be complaint with the standards by 27 November 2003.
At this inspection we found the provider had ensured there was a defibrillator at the clinic so that people would receive prompt emergency treatment.
There was evidence multi-agency safeguarding procedures for vulnerable adults and children were available. This meant people were protected from abuse.
There were arrangements in place to demonstrate staff were competent and supported to provide suitable care to people.
We spoke to the two registered managers who jobshare and a member of staff. There were no people available to speak to at the time of the visit and as there were no clinics arranged for that day.
People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their treatment.
Suitable arrangements were made for people with mobility difficulties to access the service.
A survey of people's views was examined. The results showed that people thought highly of the service. We saw that people had written, 'Overall a very efficient and friendly service'.' and "X has been nothing short of fantastic."
The provision of appropriate resuscitation equipment and the arrangements for checking required review.
There was no copy of the local multi-agency safeguarding procedures.
There were ineffective arrangements in place to demonstrate that staff were trained, competent and supported to provide safe and appropriate care to people.
People's complaints were fully investigated and resolved, where possible, to their satisfaction. The complaints procedure was available to people in the waiting room and on the provider's website.