Updated 21 October 2024
Taymount Clinic Limited is a private clinic that specialises in providing Faecal Microbiota Transplants (FMT). FMT also known as a stool transplant, is the process of transferring faecal bacteria and other microbes from a healthy individual into another individual. FMT involves the transfer of healthy bacteria in a mixture of prepared processed stools from a healthy donor to the intestine of the patient. The purpose of this treatment is to restore a healthy balance of bacteria in the gut. FMT can be used for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. The products used by Taymount Clinic Limited for FMT are supplied by their sister company, which is a separate legal entity regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
Taymount Clinic is in Letchworth Garden City in an area of medium deprivation. The lower the decile, the more deprived the practice population is relative to others.The clinic was open on Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm. There were 4 staff employed at the service, comprising of a managing director, a clinical director and 2 nutritionists.
Approximately 17 people were using the service at the time of our assessment. In 2024, the service had seen 150 people and 99 people in 2023. The service only saw people aged 18 and above.
We conducted this assessment as a follow-up to their previous CQC inspection in 2023. At our previous inspection, we had rated the service as requires improvement because:
- Not all staff members had an adequate record of immunisation relevant to their role.
- The service did not have a system or process in place for managing chaperoning.
- The service did not have a documented risk assessment in place for not storing medicines used in an emergency.
- There was no policy in place for the retention of medical records in accordance with national guidelines.
- The service did not undertake clinical audits to assess the impact on quality of care and outcomes for patients.
- There was no evidence that the service considered sharing information with a clients’ GP.
- Some of the safety systems and processes in place required strengthening.
- The service did not have clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability to support good governance and management in some areas.
- The service did not routinely inform patients of any further action that may be available to them should they not be satisfied with the response to their complaint. The principles of Duty of Candour were not understood by all staff.
- The business continuity plan was not up-to-date.
We assessed 3 quality statements across safe, effective and well-led key questions and have combined the scores for these areas with scores from the last inspection. At this assessment, we found that since the previous assessment, improvements had been made to the service. There was a strong focus on safety and saw managers had investigated concerns appropriately. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and supported them to ask questions. The provider had clear and effective governance systems, which staff regularly reviewed. Overall, we rated this service as good.