We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brook Euston on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Brook Euston, you can give feedback on this service.
Services we rate
This service had not been previously rated. We rated it as Good overall. Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.
We rated Brook Euston as Good because:
However:
Despite the team's regular requests to do so, e xternal contractors cleaning the clinic daily were not keeping clear records of all areas cleaned to ensure appropriate infection control.
Nursing staff and clinical education and wellbeing support workers did not always have regular management supervision, and a number of systems in place for monitoring staff mandatory training compliance made it difficult to confirm that all staff were up to date.
Staff were not formally auditing waiting times of children and young people attending the clinic, in order to work with partners to ensure they could meet the capacity and demand.
There were some gaps in fire alarm testing to ensure that fire safety systems functioned safely.
There had been a number of recent IT outages which had an impact on the number of people seen in clinic.
Brook Euston is part of a larger organisation, Brook Young People, and is one of three centres operated across London, which provide confidential sexual health services, support and advice to young people under the age of 25. Brook Euston is registered to provide care and treatment under the following regulated activities: diagnostic and screening services, family planning and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.
During the inspection, we reviewed documentation such as care and treatment records. We spoke with young people attending the clinics and staff working at the service to seek their views about the service. We also received feedback from the local commissioners about their views of the service.
We found:
The service ensured young people were protected from avoidable harm. Safeguarding of children and young people was effectively monitored using assessment procedures and managed proactively and effectively by staff trained to recognise early the signs of abuse.
There were robust policies and procedures in place to guide staff in their practice and ensure the safety of young people. Openness and transparency about safety was encouraged.
Confidential and personal information was stored securely.
The service ensured up to date care and treatment was delivered to young people and based on national guidelines. This included standards embodied within the ‘Health promotion for sexual and reproductive health and HIV: Strategic action plan’, 2016 to 2019 (Public Health England, 2015), and ‘You’re Welcome’ quality criteria for young people friendly health services (Department of Health 2009). The service was “You’re welcome” accredited.
The service participated in and used the outcomes from local and national audits to develop and implement care and treatment pathways for young people.
Staff worked well together as part of a multidisciplinary and multi-agency team to coordinate and deliver patient-centred care and treatment effectively. We saw evidence staff were actively committed to working collaboratively with external organisations, local network and commissioners in order to deliver joined up care for young people.
The privacy, dignity and confidentiality of young people attending the service was protected and staff treated them respectfully at all times.
Staff treated young people as individuals and there was a strong visible young person centred culture and involvement within the service.
We saw that the feedback from young people who used the service and stakeholders was consistently positive. Young people gave us clear examples, which demonstrated the value they placed upon the service and how staff supported them.
The service was planned at suitable times with the aim of meeting the needs of young people and to ensure the service was convenient and accessible to the local population. For example, the provision of a Saturday morning clinic.
The facilities and premises were suitable for the delivery and effectiveness of the service.
There was a proactive approach to understanding the needs of different groups of young people and to deliver services in a way which supported them and demonstrated equality.
The local leadership shaped the culture through effective engagement with staff and young people who used the service. For example, young people were on the Brook board of trustees.
Staff told us they felt respected and valued by their colleagues and managers.
However:
We were not assured that staff were reporting and recording incidents as required. The number of incidents reported at Brook Euston (5) was low compared to the Brook London clinics average (13) for that reporting period.
Young people frequently experienced a delay in waiting times prior to seeing a member of staff.