Archived: The Hospital Group - Southampton Clinic

This inspection was to follow up to see if the provider had taken action following one warning notice set at the last inspection on 12 July 2013. We also followed up on the compliance action set at the same inspection. We told the provider they had to meet the standards of quality and safety by 31 August 2013. This inspection found significant improvements had been made.

We did not speak with patients at the clinic at the time of our inspection as we were looking at the providers systems and processes for quality and safety.

We found patients were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. The clinic had a plan in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service patients received.

This inspection was to follow up on compliance actions set at the last inspection on 31 January 2013. The provider wrote to us and stated that they would be complaint by the end of June 2013. This inspection found that improvements were still required.

We did not speak to people attending the clinic at the time of our inspection as we were looking at the clinic's systems and processes for quality and safety.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made with regards to safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Procedures were in place. The clinic's policy and procedures were appropriate to the location and clinic setting.

There were ineffective arrangements in place to ensure staff were trained, competent and supported to provide safe and appropriate care to people.

There was no system to regularly audit the environment or audit systems that would identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

The person we spoke with who had attended the clinic a number of times spoke highly of the staff and the service that they had received there. They said that they had received comprehensive information before their surgery and that the staff had answered all their questions that enabled them to give informed consent for their procedures. One person said that the staff were 'absolutely brilliant ' and staff 'made me feel really, really welcome and really good advice.' We were told that privacy and confidentiality was respected.

We found that corporate safeguarding policy and procedure were not specific to the clinic. There was no copy of the local multi-agency safeguarding procedures.

There were ineffective arrangements in place to ensure that staff were trained, competent and supported to provide safe and appropriate care to people. We were told that the registered manager had no time allocated to carry out her mamangement duties.

The organisation had a dedicated corporate clinical governance team that assessed and monitored the safety and quality of the service but improvements are needed to ensure processes are in place to assess and monitor the quality of services at this clinic that are transparent.