Hampshire Travel and Vaccination Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as inadequate. At this assessment, the rating has changed to requires improvement.

The service remained in breach of the legal regulation relation to good governance.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a vision, strategy and the team worked together. The service’s strategy was created April 2021, however the document referred to an annual review and there was evidence to suggest the reviews were instead happening every 2 years. For example, the strategy was noted to have been last reviewed March 2023, and then again in March 2025.

The service had leaders that the staff felt they could approach, and leaders were accessible if needed. Leaders were knowledgeable about travel medicine issues and priorities for the quality of services offered. This included membership of different travel medicine societies and networks, for ongoing training, development and peer support. Clinical staff were also registered with the relevant professional body and were up to date with their revalidation.

The service fostered a culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. There were only 3 members of staff within the service, therefore there was a system in place to raise concerns externally. This was detailed in the provider’s ‘Freedom to Speak Up’ policy. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns, however, we noted none had been raised since the last inspection. Leaders told us this was because everyone at the service spoke every day and felt any issues would be reported and resolved informally.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. Although they had a very small staff team, they would support an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Policies and procedures were in place to promote diversity and equality in the workplace; however, these had not been reviewed in line with the provider’s own governance arrangements.

Governance arrangements did not always operate effectively. For example, the service could not demonstrate it had effective oversight of staff training to ensure training was kept up to date. This meant staff were not receiving the relevant updates in a timely manner and were not following their policy in relation to the frequency of training completion.

Also, the provider had not established governance processes that were appropriate for the service. For example, we noted the absence of a written protocol concerning ‘safety netting’ patients post a vaccine appointment. In addition, although the service's cold chain policy referred to a backup fridge to be used should the current vaccine fridge fail, this back up fridge was not in place. Furthermore, despite having not logged any recent significant events (including near misses and incidents) the provider had not reviewed significant event governance arrangements to consider their effectiveness.

We saw evidence of fire procedures on display throughout the building. The service had ensured staff had received an annual appraisal and these were completed in line with their policy. Leaders held quarterly business meetings during which they discussed infection control and staffing. Agendas for these meetings were shared with associated meeting minutes. Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with other services however due to the nature and size of the service there were limited opportunities to do this. Although the provider did not directly liaise with a patient’s GP after an appointment, the provider did encourage patients to do this.

Although we noted the relatively small size of the service, our inspection nonetheless highlighted an absence of learning, innovation and improvement across the business. This was despite the service remaining in breach of a legal regulation relating to good governance.Although we noted the relatively small size of the service, the practice had a quality improvement plan in place to help drive service improvements We saw minimal evidence of learning from similar organisations in the sector and overall of reflective practice.