A private cosmetic clinic on Harley Street, London, has been rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and placed in special measures, following an inspection in March.
Cranley Clinic – which provides a range of treatments including cosmetic surgery, dental services and dermatology treatment – was also suspended by the watchdog after the inspection due to serious concerns about staffing, leadership and the management of medicines. This meant it could not provide care or treatment to patients.
A further inspection by CQC this month found improvements had been made and the suspension has been lifted, although the service remains in special measures. A report of the findings of June’s inspection is planned ‘in due course’.
The CQC said it was monitoring the clinic closely and would inspect again in the coming months to assess if the improvements have been sustained.
It warned that if there were any further concerns then it would take further enforcement action to ensure people are not exposed to unsafe care and treatment.
As well as being rated inadequate overall following March’s inspection, the clinic was rated inadequate for being safe, effective, responsive to people’s needs and well-led. Inspectors did not rate the clinic for being caring.
Nicola Wise, CQC’s head of hospital inspection, said: ‘Standards of care people received at Cranley Clinic fell below standards they should be able to expect.
‘We found infection risks weren’t controlled well and that premises weren’t always clean and well-maintained. We also found resuscitation equipment wasn’t always accessible in the event of an emergency and leaders didn’t fully understand risks and performance issues.
‘However, staff were caring and compassionate, and they helped people to understand their conditions and treatment.
‘Due to the seriousness of the failings we found, we suspended the clinic, as we were not assured it could provide safe care and treatment to its patients.’
The CQC said its inspection found:
There was not evidence to demonstrate that staff had sufficient training in key skills, including safeguarding;
Infection risks were not controlled well and clinical areas weren’t clean;
Equipment was poorly maintained;
Premises were not safe, with several trip hazards in hallways and on staircases;
Clinical waste was not safely disposed;
Patient risk assessments were not always carried out;
Medicines were not stored or managed safely;
Safety incidents were not recorded properly or used to improve the service;
There was no formal consideration to the needs of patients with reduced mobility, cognitive needs or requiring language support;
Leadership wasn’t fit for purpose.