The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Sussex Travel Clinic Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

23 Farncombe Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2AY (01903) 254774

Provided and run by:
Sussex Travel Clinic Limited

All Inspections

21 October 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of The Sussex Travel Clinic, Worthing on 24 May 2019 as part of our routine inspection programme to rate services. The overall rating for the practice was good. The practice was also rated good for providing safe, effective, caring and responsive services. However, it was rated as requires improvement for providing well-led services. This was because:

  • The clinic had systems to identify, investigate and learn from safety incidents and complaints. However, action points from significant events were not always implemented and followed up.

The full comprehensive report on the 24 May 2019 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Sussex Travel Clinic Ltd on our website at .

After the inspection in May 2019 the practice wrote to us with an action plan, outlining how they would make the necessary improvements to comply with the regulations.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 21 October 2019 to ensure that the practice was now complying with the regulations.

At this inspection our key findings were:

  • The practice had improved their systems to ensure that action points from significant events were implemented and followed up.

The practice is now rated good for providing well-led services.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

24 May 2019

During a routine inspection

The Sussex Travel Clinic Limited is a private clinic which is part of the Vaccination UK group, that provide a similar service through a range of clinics. It provides independent travel health advice, travel and non-travel vaccinations, and blood tests for antibody screening. People of all ages intending to travel abroad can seek advice regarding health risks and receive both information and necessary vaccinations and medicines. In addition, the clinic holds a licence to administer yellow fever vaccines. The clinic also provides a vaccination service for occupational health service providers, a phlebotomy service and flu vaccinations.

The clinic is registered with the Care Quality Commission under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to provide the following regulated activities:

  • Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

At the time of the inspection, the clinic manager was the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. 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. The registered manager held the International Society of Travel Medicine Certificate (ISTM) in Travel Health and was a member and an examiner for the membership exam of the Faculty of Travel Medicine at the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Glasgow.

As part of our inspection we asked for Care Quality Commission comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received 22 completed comment cards which were consistently positive about the standard of care received. Patients reported staff were kind, knowledgeable, professional and informative. There were several comments relating to how clean and safe the environment was.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had systems to safeguard children and vulnerable adults from abuse.
  • The clinic had good facilities and was well equipped to treat clients and meet their needs.
  • Assessments of a client’s treatment plan were thorough and followed national guidance.
  • Clients received full and detailed explanations of any treatment options.
  • The clinic had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from safety incidents and complaints. However, action points from significant events were not always implemented and followed up.

  • There were effective arrangements in place to prevent and control infection and the premises were observed to be clean and hygienic
  • There was an induction programme for all newly appointed staff. All staff had the training they required to undertake their roles effectively
  • Staff we spoke with told us they felt valued members of the staff team and enjoyed working at the clinic

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

25 October 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Sussex Travel Clinic was previously inspected on 8 & 9 March 2017 where we found in some areas the service was not providing safe, effective or well led care. We carried out an announced focused inspection on 25 October 2018 to check if the areas of concern had been addressed for the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Our key findings were:

  • Medicines were administered in accordance with guidelines.
  • Processes were in place to safeguard clients from abuse.
  • There was an effective system to manage infection prevention and control.
  • There were comprehensive risk assessments in relation to safety issues, with clear action plans to ensure mitigating actions were completed.
  • The provider ensured that all staff had completed training appropriate for their role.
  • Leaders had established proper policies, procedures and activities to ensure safety and assured themselves that they were operating as intended.
  • The service had introduced an updated consent form for treatment of minors, which included a statement regarding parental authority.
  • The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis only.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP Chief Inspector of General Practice

8 and 9 March 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 8 and 9 March 2018 to ask the clinic the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that in some areas of care this clinic was not providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that in some areas of care this service was not providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this clinic was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this clinic was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that in some areas of care this clinic was not providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Sussex Travel Clinic provides independent travel health advice, travel and non-travel vaccinations, and blood tests for antibody screening. People of all ages intending to travel abroad can seek advice regarding health risks and receive both information and necessary vaccinations and medicines. The clinic is also a registered yellow fever vaccination centre.

The service is provided by four nurses and a GP works remotely to provide medical support to the clinic. The registered manager holds the International Society of Travel Medicine Certificate (ISTM) in Travel Health and is a member of the Faculty of Travel Medicine at the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Glasgow.

The provider is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the following regulated activity: Treatment of disease, disorder or injury. One of the nurses is the nominated individual who is also registered with Care Quality Commission as the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. 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 twelve clients about the clinic who were very positive. Comments included a great service, very informative and supportive, safe and clean environment. Clients felt staff were friendly, knowledgeable and professional.

Our key findings were:

  • The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis only.
  • The clinic had good facilities and was well equipped to treat clients and meet their needs.
  • Assessments of a client’s treatment plan were thorough and followed national guidance.
  • Clients received full and detailed explanations of any treatment options.
  • The clinic had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents relating to the safety of clients and staff members.
  • There were some processes in place to safeguard clients from abuse.
  • There was no infection prevention and control policy; and there was no record of training in infection control.
  • Some risk assessments had been carried out but there were not clear action plans to ensure that mitigating actions were completed.
  • Staff did not always maintain the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of clients and not all staff had received training in Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the appropriate level of safeguarding for their role.
  • The provider did not always ensure good governance, for example policies were not always followed or adapted to local needs and management of risk was not always sufficient.
  • Medicines were not always administered in accordance with guidelines.
  • The clinic encouraged and valued feedback from clients and staff.
  • Feedback from clients was positive.
  • The provider shared knowledge with other clinics owned by the parent company and by attending education events and training and networking with other clinical professionals specialising in travel.

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.
  • Ensure persons employed in the provision of the regulated activity receive the appropriate training necessary to enable them to carry out the duties.
  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

You can see full details of the regulations not being met at the end of this report.

17 September 2014

During a routine inspection

People were complimentary about the care and treatment they had received. The provider gave people enough information in order for people to make decisions about their treatment. The provider followed a robust consent procedure with people signing written consent forms before commencing treatment.

People had their individual needs assessed before commencing treatment. Staff were trained to deal with emergencies and there was appropriate equipment in place.

The clinic had a suitable design and layout. It was well maintained and simple in design. There were appropriate arrangements for the disposal and collection of clinical waste and sharps.

There was a robust recruitment and selection process in place with evidence of checks being undertaken for new employees. Staff had the appropriate qualifications, skills and knowledge for their roles. Staff completed a thorough induction process followed by on-going professional development.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision through surveys and audits. The provider had an effective process in place to deal with incidents, risks and complaints.