The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Veincentre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Lyme Vale Court, Lyme Drive, Parklands, Stoke On Trent, Staffordshire, ST4 6NW (01782) 753960

Provided and run by:
Veincentre Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Veincentre 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 Veincentre, you can give feedback on this service.

29 May 2019

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Veincentre Stoke on 29 May 2019 as part of our inspection programme.

Veincentre Stoke is based in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire and provides specialist non-surgical diagnosis and treatment for adults suffering from venous insufficiency, a condition that occurs when the venous walls or valves in the leg veins are not working effectively.

Dr David West 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.

Twenty-nine patients provided feedback about the service through our Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards. Six patients contacted the CQC directly to share their experience of the service. Feedback obtained clearly demonstrated positive outcomes for patients. Patients told us staff were excellent, caring, helpful, professional and friendly. They told us they were involved in decisions about their care and the service was good value for the money they had paid. They considered the clinic provided an excellent service with the care and treatment exceeding their expectations. Patients also told us they were given all the information they needed to make an informed decision about their treatment options in advance of their treatment in addition to receiving detailed aftercare support and advice.

Our key findings were :

  • There was a transparent approach to safety with effective systems in place for reporting and recording adverse incidents.
  • There were effective procedures in place for monitoring and managing risks to patient and staff safety. For example, there were arrangements in place to safeguard vulnerable people from abuse, and to ensure the premises were safe for patients, staff and members of the public.
  • There were systems in place for checking emergency equipment however, they were not always effective. This was rectified immediately after our inspection.
  • There were systems in place for the appropriate and safe handling of medicines however, records were not always completed in line with national guidance following the administration of medicines. This was rectified immediately after our inspection.
  • Patients received detailed and clear information about their proposed treatment which enabled them to make an informed decision. This included costs, risks and benefits of treatment.
  • Clinicians assessed patients according to appropriate guidance, legislation and standards and delivered care and treatment in line with current evidence-based guidance.
  • Staff were supported through supervision, training, coaching and mentoring appropriate to their role.
  • Patient feedback was that staff were excellent, caring, helpful, professional and friendly.
  • Patients were offered appointments at a time convenient to them and with the same clinician to ensure their continuity of care and treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • There was evidence of continuous improvement and innovation.

We saw the following outstanding practice:

  • Veincentre Stoke delivered a super specialist service to treat varicose veins. (A super specialist is a sub-specialist who has self-limited their practice to one aspect of a sub-specialty). This single disorder management enabled more efficient working and delivery of care and treatment. Data showed to us by the service demonstrated outcomes for patients undergoing treatment for varicose veins were above national thresholds. For example, lower complication rates and higher patient reported outcome measures.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Follow and act on their own processes for checking that emergency equipment is in date.
  • Monitor staff compliance with completion of records made following the administration of medicines.
  • Review their processes for assessing that staff are physically and mentally suitable to carry out their role.

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

28 February 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 28 February 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 wed-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.

Veincentre Stoke is based in Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire and provides a specialist non-surgical diagnosis and treatment of adults suffering from venous insufficiency, a condition that occurs when the venous walls or valves in the leg veins are not working effectively. The clinic is owned and managed by Veincentre Limited, which was established in 2003 by a consultant interventional radiologist and provides consultations, ultrasound scanning and minimally invasive treatment procedures to manage symptoms and treat complications of venous insufficiency and improve the appearance of varicose veins. Clinics are also provided at other sites based in Bristol, London, Manchester, Newcastle Under Lyme, Nottingham and Oxfordshire. The services are provided to adults privately and are not commissioned by the NHS. Dr David West 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.

In preparation for and during the inspection, 37 patients provided feedback about the service they had received. Feedback obtained clearly demonstrated positive outcomes for patients. Patients spoke very highly of the care and treatment they had received from the clinic and told us they would highly recommend the service. They considered the clinic provided an excellent service with the care and treatment exceeding their expectations. They described staff as friendly, efficient, helpful and caring. Patients also told us they were given all of the information they needed to make an informed decision about their treatment options in advance of their treatment in addition to receiving detailed aftercare support and advice. Staff we spoke with told us they were very well supported in their work and were proud to be part of a team which provided a high quality, specialised service.

Our key findings were:

  • Patients received detailed and clear information about their proposed treatment which enabled them to make an informed decision. This included costs, risks and benefits of treatment.

  • Patients were offered appointments at a time convenient to them and with the same clinician to ensure their continuity of care and treatment.

  • Patients’ needs were fully assessed and care and treatment was tailored to individual needs and delivered in line with current evidence based guidance.

  • There was a transparent approach to safety with demonstrably effective systems in place for reporting and recording adverse incidents.

  • There were effective procedures in place for monitoring and managing risks to patient and staff safety. For example, there were arrangements to prevent the spread of infection.

  • Clinicians assessed patients according to appropriate guidance and standards.

  • Staff were supported with their personal development and received opportunities for supervision, training, coaching and mentoring appropriate to their role.
  • Patients told us staff were kind, caring, and competent and put them at their ease and maintained their dignity.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.

  • There was a clear staffing structure and staff were aware of their own roles and responsibilities.

  • The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.