The Rostra Clinic

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

However, staff did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients told us the RM was very person-centred. The RM told us they would assess the risks of all patients, and if necessary, advise they needed to be treated in the NHS.

The RM shared an example of a patient who was profoundly hearing-impaired, lipreading and bringing their son to communicate using British Sign Language. Staff were aware of the complications from using family members as translators. They would rather use a voice activated search engine to translate if needed. We were not sent any interpreter or translation policy for staff to follow.

The service had no provision for less mobile or physically disabled patients. The RM confirmed no patients with mobility issues had accessed the service.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Managers sent discharge letters to the patient’s GP surgery. They described all procedures and medical history in detail for their records and clearly outlined any follow up care needed.

After our on-site assessment we were sent the provider’s in-date integrated care pathway (ICP). This outlined eight pathway stages and what should happen at each. The policy’s introduction stated, ‘it shall be used as a format for all patient records of care’ and ‘any variance from the ICP shall be formally reported and documented’.

However, on-site all eight patient records we reviewed missed key information about pathway stages. Staff had not reported these. This meant they were not adhering to the pathway.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients told us they were given useful information throughout the pathway, from their first consultation and on post-procedural aftercare. They said they could understand clear, verbal and written instructions.

The service displayed CQC’s certificate of registration and RM details by the entrance. We also saw their in-date certificates of employers’ liability insurance and data protection registration from the information commissioner’s office (ICO). After our on-site assessment we were sent the provider’s in-date insurance policy schedule from March 2025.

Patients could access information on laser treatment for varicose veins from the waiting room desk. The provider had a patient guide available detailing treatments, complications, frequently asked questions (FAQs) and post operative advice.

However, the premises had no posters on-site to inform patients and other visitors they were being recorded on closed circuit television (CCTV). We asked staff if the service had a CCTV policy and they confirmed they did not. This meant the service was non-compliant with the general data protection regulations (GDPR) to display clear signage.

We informed the RM of their legal duty to display their latest CQC ratings on their website. They confirmed they would update their website link to CQC’s last report.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The clinic has had 12 search engine reviews from the last 12 months; all were rated five out of five stars. Their last four reviews which specifically mentioned varicose veins procedures were all very positive.

Staff told us they sought patient feedback without forcing patients. They gave every patient who visited the service a QR code on the RM’s business card. Staff reported their patient feedback rate was very low. Around half of their referred patients were from testimonials and recommendations. Their search engine reviews represented around 30-40% of their total patients.

After our on-site assessment we were sent the provider’s in-date complaints policy and statement. These outlined the process and timescales for receiving, acknowledging, investigating and resolving verbal and written complaints.

However, on-site staff could give us no examples of learning from patient complaints. This meant we could not ensure staff had listened and learnt from people to improve their service.

We found no information on-site informing patients how to complain. The service had received no complaints in the 12 months before our assessment. This meant we could not evidence or ensure staff would handle and respond to complaints effectively or promptly.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The RM told us they rarely had an overlap of patients. If one patient’s procedure overran, staff sat the next patient in the waiting room. The RM saw and treated patients in the main clinic and ultrasound room. However, they could offer consultations in the waiting room area if patients preferred.

Treatments across both procedures lasted between five and 35 minutes. On the day of our assessment, patients had no delays or waiting time.

The RM would message patients who did not attend (DNA) after 15 minutes.

However, we saw no formal DNA policy staff could follow. They told us follow up appointments were poorly attended.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Managers and staff could not provide any examples of how they considered or met equity in experiences and outcomes for patients during this assessment. They did not work towards better support for seldom heard or underserved groups or communities. We did not receive any data to evidence this after leaving site.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Patients told us that staff supported them by providing information to help make decisions about care and treatment.

However, staff did not record this information in patient’s care records. All eight records we reviewed did not contain or identify individual information relating to patient’s post operative treatment or ongoing health needs. This meant we could not ensure staff helped them with longer-term future planning.