The Evewell (Harley Street) Limited Also known as The Evewell

This is the first time we rated this 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 and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learnt lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, 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 and supported them to make decisions about their care. Key services were available six days a week.
• 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.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of patients, 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 too long 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. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• At the time of inspection, the safeguarding policy was not comprehensive and did not make any reference to female genital mutilation (FGM). Staff did not receive training on FGM. Following inspection feedback, evidence was provided that the policy had been updated and staff had received training in this.
• There was no formally documented admission policy or inclusion criteria for patients who could be treated at the service.
• At the time of inspection, the service did not have a separate sepsis policy or training, although this formed part of intermediate life support (ILS) training. Following our inspection, the service added a section on sepsis to their management of emergencies policy and added a separate mandatory sepsis training module for clinical staff.