Archived: Clean Ear Clinic Emsworth

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 19 September 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

The services are provided to adults privately and are not commissioned by the NHS.

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the services it provides. The Clean Ear Clinic Emsworth is registered with CQC to provide the regulated activities of treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The types of services provided are doctor’s consultation service and doctor’s treatment service.

At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

We received 33 comment cards from patients who had used the service. These were all positive about the service experienced.

We were unable to speak with patients on the day of the inspection about their experience of the service they received. This was because, on the day of our visit, there were no patients receiving treatment.

Our key findings were:

• There were systems in place to check all equipment had been serviced regularly.
• Patients who used the service self-funded for treatment.
• Patients could choose which of the provider’s clinic they would prefer to attend.
• Feedback from patient about the quality of the service they experienced were positive.
• Patients were provided with information about their health and received advice and guidance to support them with healthier ear care.
• Staff had the skills and competence to deliver treatment.
• Staff had clear roles and responsibilities.
• The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
• The was a clear governance structure and the provider held regular governance meetings to monitor the performance of the service.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Record the risks associated with not having emergency equipment on the premises and actions to mitigate those risks.
• Formalise and record the process for clinical supervision and appraisal to ensure staff receive these on a regular basis.
• Define what the organisation considers to be a significant event and have clear structures in place for the management of these.