• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Enterprise Health Care

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Peek House, 20 Eastcheap, London, EC3M 1EB (020) 7112 4924

Provided and run by:
Enterprise Healthcare Solutions Ltd

Important:

We took enforcement action against Enterprise Healthcare Solutions Ltd on 20 January 2026 for failing to meet the regulations related to safe care and treatment and good governance at Enterprise Health Care.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

We carried out an unannounced focussed, risk-based assessment of Enterprise Health Care on 5 and 13 January 2026. This assessment was carried out in response to stakeholder feedback, and due to the service not being inspected since 11 June 2019.

Enterprise Health Care (also known as London Dermatology Clinic) is a private service that provides dermatology consultations and treatments. It also offers a range of minor procedures for day‑clients, using non‑invasive or minimally invasive techniques such as aesthetic treatments, hair transplantation, and minor surgery relating to the eyes, veins, and dermatology. The service provides care for adults and children.

Enterprise Healthcare Solutions Ltd is registered to provide the regulated activities Surgical procedures, Diagnostic and screening procedures and Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. Services are provided from its registered location; Enterprise Health Care, Peek House, 20 Eastcheap, London, EC3M 1EB.

Clinical staff include consultant independent medical practitioners working under practising privileges: 5 plastic surgeons, 2 dermatologists, an oculoplastic surgeon and a vascular surgeon, and 3 clinical assistants led by the clinical lead GP. The non‑clinical team consists of one remote working manager, 2 front‑of‑house staff and 3 booking team staff.

The clinical lead GP is the provider’s CQC Registered Manager. A Registered Manager is a person 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 runs.

We found breaches of regulation due to absent or ineffective arrangements to ensure people’s safe care and treatment and good governance. We have taken enforcement action in response to the concerns identified during this assessment. Warning Notices have been issued to the provider, Enterprise Healthcare Solutions Ltd, for failing to comply with the regulations relating to Safe Care and Treatment and Good Governance at the Enterprise Health Care location.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

Where relevant, further commentary is provided in the quality statements section of this report.

SAFE: Arrangements to ensure premises and medicines safety, infection prevention, and preparedness for an emergency were ineffective. The service did not have a good learning culture where people could raise concerns that were acted upon. Managers did not investigate incidents thoroughly to ensure safety. The facilities and equipment had not been kept clean and well-maintained to mitigate risks. There were enough staff, but recruitment checks, and staff skills, qualifications and experience were often not verified or assured. Managers had not ensured staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care.

We wrote to the provider seeking urgent assurance due to the safety concerns identified, which the service responded to.

WELL-LED: There was no shared vision or culture based on listening or learning and to foster trust. Leaders were not visible and did not always understand their roles and responsibilities and how to deliver them effectively. There was no evidence of effective governance or learning to drive improvements.

11 Jun 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 Enterprise Health Care as part of our inspection programme.

At this inspection we found:

  • The service had effective systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When they did happen, the service learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The service routinely 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 people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients were able to access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous innovation and improvement within the service.

Although there were no breaches of regulations found, there were areas where the provider should make improvements:

  • Establish a system for systematically checking parental responsibility for children attending the clinic.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

21 November 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced focussed inspection on 21 November 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe 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 well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

CQC inspected the service on 27 June 2018 and as a result asked the provider to make improvements regarding: staff training, regularly reviewing emergency use equipment and medicines, its definition of significant events and to record minutes of meetings. We issued requirement notices for breaches of regulations 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We checked these areas as part of this focussed inspection and found all issues had been resolved.

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 as a focussed follow up inspection to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, in respect of issues we found at the previous inspection.

The report for our previous inspection in June 2018 can be found on the CQC website by selecting the Reports tab from: https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-4487596434.

Enterprise Health Care (also known as London Dermatology Clinic) is a private service providing general dermatology consultations and treatments. it also conducts minor cosmetic treatments to day-clients using a range of non-invasive or minimally invasive procedures. It is located in Eastcheap, London. It provides services to adults and children between the ages of four to 18.

The registered manager is a qualified GP with a special interest in dermatology, who shares the day-to-day management of the service with a director of the service who is a qualified pharmacist. 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:

  • The service had changed its definition of significant events to include acts or omissions in clinical, organisational and communication areas that provided an opportunity to identify an area of learning, improvement or the dissemination of good practice.
  • Staff personnel files contained evidence staff had received training to an appropriate level in safeguarding training for vulnerable adults and children.
  • The service had implemented an appropriate system for checking equipment for use in a medical emergency, and was regularly reviewing its stocks of emergency medicines. It had an appropriate re-ordering system to replace any used or soon to expire stock.


Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

27 June 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 27 June 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 not 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 not 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.

Enterprise Health Care (also known as London Dermatology Clinic) is a private service providing general dermatology consultations and treatments. it also conducts minor cosmetic treatments to day-clients using a range of non-invasive or minimally invasive procedures. It is located in Eastcheap, London. It provides services to adults and children between the ages of four to 18.

The registered manager is a qualified GP with a special interest in dermatology, who shares the day-to-day management of the service with a director of the service who is a qualified pharmacist. 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.

As part of this inspection we asked for CQC comment cards to be completed. We received 11 completed CQC comment cards. All the completed cards indicated that patients were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were described as friendly, caring and professional. Some patients commented on how using the service had helped them with their individual care needs and to resolve their concerns.

Our key findings were:

  • Not all the information we would expect to find on staff personnel records was stored on the records that we reviewed, including, interview summaries and evidence of training in the Mental Capacity Act and information governance.
  • Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support. However, there was no record that all medicines and equipment for use in an emergency were being regularly checked.
  • Screens provided in consulting rooms to maintain patients’ privacy and dignity during examinations, investigations and treatments were not made of a suitable material that could be kept clean within a clinical environment.
  • The service did not have a suitable system in place for reporting, recording and analysing significant events.
  • The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis.
  • There was a clear procedure for handling alerts from organisations such as MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency).
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • All health assessment rooms were well organised and equipped, with good light and ventilation.
  • Clinicians regularly assessed patients according to appropriate guidance and standards such as those issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
  • Staff were kind, caring, competent and put patients at their ease.
  • Patients were provided with information about their health and with advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
  • The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • Systems were in place to ensure that all patient information was securely stored and kept confidential.

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care

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

  • Review and consider replacing the screens in consultation and treatment rooms with screens that can be kept clean in a clinical environment.
  • Review and consider putting warning signs outside all treatment room doors to prevent staff entering during a patient consultation.
  • Continue to review and monitor that care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.