Archived: The Private Clinic Limited - Leeds

This location has not been inspected before. We rated it as inadequate because:

• The service did not provide consistently safe care. Staff did not consistently assess the risks to patients and act upon risk assessments. Staff did not follow all procedures to control and manage the risk of infection or to record consent appropriately. Staff did not keep consistently good care records or use effective systems to manage medicines appropriately. The service did not learn lessons from incidents.
• Staff did not carry out effective audits of the environment or clinical practice.
• The service did not take account of all patients’ individual needs.
• The service was not consistently well-led. Leaders did not use effective systems to run services. Staff were not always clear about their roles and accountabilities. Managers did not operate governance systems to identify, manage and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of patients.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients. Staff had training in key skills, and understood how to protect patients from abuse,
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and pain relief when they needed it.
• Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff advised patients on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available five days a week.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback. People did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Managers used reliable information systems. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of the business and of patients receiving care
• The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Following our inspection, we served the provider a letter of intent which told the provider CQC were considering using urgent enforcement powers because our inspection had identified concerns which put people who use services at the risk of harm. The provider was offered the opportunity to put forward documentary evidence to provide assurance that the risks identified had already been removed or were immediately being removed. The provider responded with assurance that some but not all of the concerns had been immediately addressed and so we served the provider a Warning Notice under Section 29 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The warning notice told the provider they were in breach of Regulation 17 and gave the provider a timescale to make improvements to achieve compliance. The principles we use when rating providers require CQC to reflect enforcement action in our ratings. The warning notice identified concerns in the safe and well-led domain. This means that the warning notice we served has limited the rating for safe and well-led to inadequate.

We will undertake further activity to check on the action the provider has taken.