Taymount Clinic Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

At our previous inspection in 2023, we rated the provider as requires improvement for providing safe services because they did not have clear systems to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse across all areas. Additionally, our previous inspection was concerned at the management of incidents and significant events.

At this inspection, we saw improvements had been made. We saw regular audits of clinical safety completed, significant events were managed and discussed in daily meetings and staff took all concerns seriously. When things went wrong, staff acted to ensure people remained safe. Managers investigated all reported incidents to reduce the likelihood of them happening again. A recent example of a significant event was noted for a patient who came to harm from a faulty door handle. The practice issued an apology and ensured the door handle was replaced. Staff supported people to live healthy lives and provided them with support and information on their care and treatment.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At the last inspection, we found the principles of duty of candour were not understood by all staff. At this inspection, the provider told us staff were now aware of the principles of the duty of candour and there was a duty of candour policy in date and there had not been any incidents requiring a duty of candour disclosure. The provider also had processes for staff to report incidents, near misses and safety events in a timely manner; however, they told us there had been no significant events in the last 12 months.

There was also a system to record and investigate complaints and when things went wrong, the staff apologised and gave people support. There had only been 1 complaint that was fully investigated and the learning had been shared with all staff members. Learning was shared across the staff team through team meetings, educational sessions and embedded into the staff practice. These sessions also included a standard operating procedure that all staff would use to ensure learning was documented, analysed and an assessment of the learning was documented in a structured manner. The staff would also follow up with people every 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 12 months, ensuring that there were robust procedures in place. They had systems to keep records of investigation reports, action plans and meeting minutes where incidents were discussed.

The provider operated a self-referral service, meaning patients could contact them directly without requiring a referral from another healthcare professional and there were processes in place for this. Each patient followed a structured pathway from initial enquiry through to consultation, treatment, and comprehensive follow-up. For example, in the initial consultation questionnaire and the consent form patients were asked if they wanted the provider to contact their GP for share information with them. Where appropriate, patients were also signposted to liaise with external healthcare professionals to ensure continuity of care beyond their service scope. The processes they had in place ensured patients received consistent and coordinated care at every stage.

We saw evidence of their consultation, booking and approval process for patients seeking Faecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) treatment at their clinic. Initial screening consultations were undertaken by FMT practitioners, which served to identify potential patients with pre-existing conditions which were not compatible with this type of treatment. Patients were required to make a non-fundable deposit payment to secure their provisional treatment dates in the service diary and once the deposit was reviewed, a suitable date was reserved for the patient. The deposit payment also allowed their medical officer to conduct a detailed review of the patient’s medical results and history to determine whether FMT treatment was suitable and safe for them. The medical officer could approve or decline treatment based on this assessment. There were processes in place in the event that FMT treatment was not approved and these were explained in the terms and conditions of the service before the patients paid the deposit.All decisions were fully documented on the patient record.

Records were saved onto their designated clinical system and archived in their clinic server after treatment.

All staff were safeguarding trained in line with intercollegiate guidance for their roles. There had not been any safeguarding concerns in the past 12 months, however, staff were able to detail in depth the processes to follow to escalate concerns. There was a designated safeguarding lead, all policies were in date and staff awareness of safeguarding was shown with in depth knowledge. Although the staff did not see people under the age of 18, staff still completed child safeguarding training and also completed level 3 adult safeguarding training as per the national guidelines.

Following the inspection, the provider implemented the Female Genitalia Mutilation (FGM) policy with guidance on recognising FGM, reporting concerns and supporting the patients affected. The provider told us they were actively registering their clinic as a designated safe space. Staff had Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks completed every 3 years to an enhanced level.

At the last inspection, we found there were no systems or processes that enabled the registered person to ensure arrangements for chaperoning were adequate. At this inspection, we found systems and processes were now in place, as staff had received mandatory chaperone training and a policy was now in place. Patients were now offered a chaperone before treatment commenced and they also established a dedicated chaperone request form, ensuring comprehensive documentation of all chaperone-related interactions.

There was up to date legionella testing and equipment testing with no actions required. There was a health and safety audit completed quarterly, with no actions required. The fire risk assessment had just been completed in March 2025 and was arranged every 6 months. There were no actions and the fire company praised the clinic for its maintenance of the building. There were no risks of fire found in any emergency lighting, any roof space or internally or externally to the building. Face-to-face fire training was in date and completed annually.

The clinic had provisions in place to support disabled people with level access to wheelchairs and a disabled toilet. All clinic rooms were visibly clean, each room had a shower facility and this was consistent with positive patient feedback where they described the clinic as immaculate and well organised. Some patients also fed back that the cabins where treatment took place were very quiet and clean.

There was up to date legionella testing and equipment testing with no actions required. There was a health and safety audit completed quarterly, with no actions required. The fire risk assessment had just been completed in March 2025 and was arranged every 6 months. There were no actions and the fire company praised the clinic for its maintenance of the building. There were no risks of fire found in any emergency lighting, any roof space or internally or externally to the building. Face-to-face fire training was in date and completed annually.

The clinic had provisions in place to support disabled people with level access to wheelchairs and a disabled toilet. All clinic rooms were visibly clean, each room had a shower facility and this was consistent with positive patient feedback where they described the clinic as immaculate and well organised. Some patients also fed back that the cabins where treatment took place were very quiet and clean.

The service staff comprised of the Registered Manager, 1 doctor, 2 Senior FMT Practitioner Nutrition Advisors and an administrator who were highly experienced in diet and the gut health industry and this was consistent with patient feedback where all the staff received high praise from the patients. Positive feedback from patients praised knowledgeable and highly skilled staff. Staff were also provided with continuous in-house training, with separate records maintained for procedure specific training.The provider told us training for all staff was up to date and was at 100% completion. Although we were provided with some training records, we did not see a system where all staff training was recorded to ensure it was all monitored and up tod date. Staff were encouraged to attend any relevant training updates for FMT and would be tested on their knowledge and competence on a daily basis. They were also encouraged and supported to complete training courses external to the clinic which included continuous professional development, to remain updated on best practices and advancements in the field. Their chief medical officer also delivered training to individual staff members and the clinical team also attended external conferences, seminars and networked with like-minded professionals.

Infection prevention and control audits were up to date, last completed in March 2025 and there was a rigid cleaning routine that was completed and documented multiple times a day and spot-checked. For example, a hand hygiene audit and cleanliness of clinical areas audit was carried out, leading to enhanced protocols and more frequent monitoring to ensure high standards of cleanliness were maintained.Positive patient feedback praised the cleanliness of the clinic and patients told us thorough hygiene was practiced at all times.

At our previous inspection in 2023, we found not all staff had received immunisations. At this inspection, we found the provider had addressed this in their action plan and had risk assessed the potential harm that could arise from clinical staff not having up-to-date immunisations and they indicated a low level of risk associated with their staff's immunisation status. The provider told us they did not engage in activities that involved exposure to blood or participated in blood-drawing procedures; however, in cases where blood drawing was required, then it was performed by a member of staff who was phlebotomy trained and immunised. A Standard Operating Procedure was in place for blood drawing and they implemented a system aimed at maintaining up-to-date and accurate immunisation records for all their clinical staff members, tailored to their specific roles within the organisation.

The provider had an in-house medical officer and a clinic director to ensure effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. There had not been any recent medicine recalls applicable to the service provision; only the manufacturing side of the business which was regulated by the Medicines, Healthcare and Regulatory Agency. Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received recommended monitoring. Staff received regular training on medicines management and felt confident managing the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff managed medicines-related stationery appropriately and securely.

Staff followed protocols to ensure they prescribed all medicines safely and ensured people received all recommended medicines reviews and monitoring. Staff involved people in reviews of their medicines and helped them understand how to manage their medicines safely. People knew what to do and who to contact if their condition did not improve or they experienced any unexpected symptoms. Emergency medicines were stocked in the premises, and there was regular checks of equipment and medicines daily. All staff were appropriately trained in emergency medicine usage and also how to recognise signs of sepsis in people. Risk assessments were in place; for example, medicines not stocked and why there was no locum use at the service.

The provider was in discussion with a London based hepatologist for taking part in a clinical trial looking at gut health, Faecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) and the effects on the liver. The provider also was working on design of a new gut health product for detox and gut lining and in consultation with international partners. The aim of this clinical trial was to study the effects of FMT and how much liver function improved as well as gut health.