The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

CRGH City

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

16 St John Street, London, EC1M 4NT (020) 7837 2905

Provided and run by:
City Fertility Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about CRGH City 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 CRGH City, you can give feedback on this service.

18 January 2022

During a routine inspection

We have not previously rated the service. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • Staff gave inconsistent information on whom to inform if they had any safeguarding children and vulnerable adults concerns.
  • Medicines management audits were not completed frequently, and we found expired medication present.
  • The standard operating procedure (SOP) for HyCoSy did not refer to the specific professional guidance and version used to inform the SOP.

18 September 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak with patients during this inspection. We carried out this inspection to check that St John Street ' Consulting Suite had taken action to address areas of non-compliance that we found at our last inspection.

At our previous inspection of 11 November 2013 we found that St John Street - Consulting Suite did not have suitable arrangements in place for infection prevention and control and the recruitment of new staff.

The provider told us they would take actions to rectify their non-compliance, which included updating their infection prevention and control procedures, ensuring staff were adequately trained and developing a comprehensive checklist to guide the cleaning of all areas of the premises. They told us they would also complete an audit of all staff files and ensure all relevant recruitment documentation was in place.

When we inspected St John Street - Consulting Suite on 18 September 2014 we found that the provider had taken the actions they had stated and that there were now suitable arrangements in place for infection prevention and control and the recruitment of new staff.

11 November 2013

During a routine inspection

The service was delivered from attractive, newly refurbished premises with treatment and consultation rooms as well as surgical theatre facilities.

We were only able to speak to one person who used the service who told us that they were very satisfied with their treatment and care. We saw from the monitoring information that those surveyed were also very satisfied with the service they received.

The six medical files for people who used the service that we looked at showed that people were provided with sufficient information about treatment at the clinic. The files also demonstrated that people had plenty of support to understand their care and the implications of decisions they made about it. We saw that treatment was provided in a way which ensured their welfare although we were not able to verify that procedures were in place to deal with emergencies that the provider might expect to arise from time to time.

We looked at the procedures for ensuring infection prevention and control. Whilst the facilities were new and of a high standard it was not possible to verify that suitable procedures to ensure prevention and control of infection were being implemented because records about what was being done were not available.

We met some of the clinical and support staff who were professional and knowledgeable about their service and the treatments on offer. However the provider was unable to show us records to confirm that staff were qualified to carry out their work.

The service had good procedures to assess the effectiveness of the treatment carried out.