You are here

Archived: Urban Medical & Aesthetics Clinic Good

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

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 16 May 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 Urban Medical Clinic on 16 May 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

Urban Medical Clinic provides a private doctor consultation and treatment service, offering private consultations with a GP. The service treats adults only. Urban Medical Clinic predominantly provides aesthetic cosmetic treatments which are exempt by law from CQC regulation. We inspected the primary medical service and not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

The doctor is the sole clinician practicing at the clinic and is the registered manager of the clinic. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered people. 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.

We received feedback from 11 people about the service, including comment cards, all of which were very positive about the service. (We could not identify comments specifically made by patients attending the service for medical consultations). People indicated that they were always treated with kindness and respect and achieved good outcomes. The doctor was described as caring, thorough and professional.

Our key findings were:

  • Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. The doctor was aware of their responsibility to safeguard patients at risk of abuse and had undertaken adult safeguarding to level three.
  • The provider was aware of current evidence based guidance and they had the skills, knowledge and experience to provide the service.
  • The provider was aware of their responsibility to respect people’s diversity and human rights.
  • The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
  • The service was responsive to patients’ needs. The service was accessible during the day, evenings and at the weekend.
  • There was a complaints procedure in place and information on how to complain was readily available.
  • Governance arrangements were in place. There were clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management.
  • The service had appropriate facilities and was equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The service had systems in place to collect and act on feedback from patients.

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

  • Document any safety-netting advice provided to patients in the medical records.
  • Carry out a risk assessment before using the laser (recently purchased) for medical treatments.
  • Undertake safeguarding children training to level 3.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP

Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care