• Hospital
  • Independent hospital


Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Britannia House, 958-964 High Road, London, N12 9RY (020) 8445 8877

Provided and run by:
My-iClinic Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 3 January 2018

My-iClinic is operated by My-iClinic Limited. The service opened in 2012. It is a private clinic offering private eye consultation and surgery in North London. The hospital primarily serves the communities of North London and the surrounding areas. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area and overseas.

The hospital has two registered managers, one in post since August 2013 and the second since December 2014.

The hospital provides day surgery only. Patients were operated on and discharged within a day, hence, there were no beds at the hospital as patients did not stay overnight.

The clinic only offered private services and NHS patients were not treated at the clinic.

The hospital is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Diagnostic and screening services.

• Surgical services.

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

Overall inspection

Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2018

My-iClinic is operated by My-iClinic Limited. The clinic opened in 2012 and offers outpatient and day surgery facilities in North London. The clinic is situated on the ground floor of a residential block and includes one operating theatre, a pre and post-operative area, three consultation rooms as well as four separate areas designed for tests to be carried out.

The service provides surgery, services for children and young people, and outpatients and diagnostic imaging. During our reporting period of April 2016 to March 2017, the hospital recorded 345 visits to theatre, all of which were for cataract surgery. The clinic only performed surgery on adults. There were 458 outpatient attendances recorded, 14 of which were by children and young people under the age of 18. Children were treated for squint (an eye condition, where the eyes do not look in the same direction. This means that one eye may not focus on an object someone is looking at.) The majority of outpatient attendances were for pre-operative and post-operative cataract consultations; 74 attendances were for laser procedures post cataract surgery and 19 for intravitreal injection for the treatment of age related macular degeneration.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection on the 19 September 2017.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this hospital was surgery. Where our findings on surgery service– for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery core service.

Services we rate

We rated this service as requires improvement overall because:

  • There was no system to ensure the correct storage of medicine in the outpatient area.
  • Although the clinic used a surgical safety checklist, we observed some steps of the checklist were not fully embedded in practice.
  • Daily checks of the sterilisation machine were not routinely completed, which was not in line with manufacturer's guidance.
  • Cleaning products were not stored in locked cupboards as required by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH).
  • The service did not participate in National Audits and there were no system in place to monitor clinical outcomes and benchmark against similar services.
  • There was limited local audits to monitor compliance against the local policies.
  • There was no Medical Advisory Committee in place to provide oversight on quality.
  • Discussions during the discharge process were not held in private and could be overheard by other patients.
  • Although the clinic offered services to children and young people, staff did not have access to a paediatric nurse. This was not in line with Royal College of Nursing guidance.
  • Although the leadership team were aware of some of the risks within their service, these risks were not formally recorded on a risk register or regularly discussed to ensure these risks were being mitigated.
  • The clinic did not have a laser protection advisor to provide the appropriate professional assistance in determining hazards and assessing risks related to laser use.
  • The waiting area did not have a children's area and there were no activities or toys available.


  • We saw that systems were in place to ensure a good level of cleanliness and hygiene throughout the clinic.
  • Systems were in place for staff to report incidents and we saw incidents were investigated and staff received individual feedback.
  • A maintenance schedule was in place to ensure all equipment at the clinic was maintained and serviced.
  • Theatre list and clinics were planned in advance and there were enough staff with the right skills to ensure patients received safe care.
  • Patient care pathways were based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and Royal College of Ophthalmology guidelines.
  • Staff were up to date with their mandatory training and we saw staff also received additional competency training for the specific tasks that they undertook.
  • Pain was assessed post-operatively and we saw patients received appropriate advice on how to manage their pain after discharge.
  • The rate of post-operative complication was lower than the national average.
  • Without exception, patients told us they were treated with kindness and compassion by all staff.
  • Patients spoke positively about the service and the care they had received.
  • Patients were fully involved in their care and staff explained procedures to them as well as providing them with clear written information.
  • Staff spoke very positively about the leadership of the service; staff felt engaged and enjoyed working at the clinic.
  • We saw effective communication and partnership working between the different professional groups.
  • Patients were able to self-refer to the hospital and the service arranged appointment and surgery times to meet the needs of the individual patient. This included staggered surgery times to ensure patients were not waiting for long periods of time.
  • The management team worked hard to engage staff and we saw staff views were listened to. Attempts were also made to engage with the public and promote the services offered by the clinic.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Services for children & young people

Insufficient evidence to rate

Updated 3 January 2018

Children and young people’s services were a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

Outpatients and diagnostic imaging

Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2018

Surgery and outpatients and diagnostic imaging were the regular activities at the service. Surgery was the main activity of the hospital. Where our findings relate to both activities, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery section.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 January 2018

Surgery was the main activity of the hospital. Where our findings on surgery also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the surgery section.

Staffing was managed jointly with outpatients and diagnostic imaging

We rated this service as requires improvement overall.