May Wellness Centre

Updated 1 November 2019

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?
• Is it effective?
• Is it caring?
• Is it responsive to people’s needs?
• Is it well-led?

These questions therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 1 November 2019

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at The May Wellness Centre as part of our inspection programme. The May Wellness Centre provides a service for adults aged 18 years and older for dermatological services and blood collection. The consultants who come into the centre undertake the regulated activities on a 'practice privileges' arrangement (this is an established process in the independent healthcare sector where medical practitioners are granted permission to work in independent clinics). Checks and vetting are undertaken to ensure they are fit to carry out the procedures on behalf of Quinn Aesthetics Limited. This is a new service with a growing patient list so there is flexibility with appointment times.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in and of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. May Wellness Centre provides a range of services which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The practice manager is the registered manager. 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.

A total of 15 people provided feedback about the service through the completion of comment cards and speaking with the inspector. All the comments were positive about the service. Patients described the service as professional and friendly. They also told us they felt listened to and were comfortable with the approach and manner of staff.

Our key findings were:

• There was a transparent approach to safety with effective systems in place for reporting and recording incidents.
• Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• All consultation rooms were well organised and equipped, with good light and ventilation.
• There were systems in place to check all equipment had been serviced regularly.
• The staff team maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients.
• The staff team were up to date with current guidelines and were led by a provider who was proactive in keeping all clinicians up to date.
• Risks to patients were well managed. For example, there were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of patient services.
• The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Review the arrangements for customer feedback to ensure it includes the quality of clinical care received as well as customer satisfaction.
• Review and update the policy on infection prevention and control to clarify arrangements for communicable disease control and notifiable infections.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care