We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 17 July 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

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.

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. Blackberry Clinic - Milton Keynes is registered in respect of the provision of treatment of diseases, disorder or injury; Diagnostic and screening procedures. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the health screening service as well as clinical consultations, examinations and treatments in general medicine for example; musculoskeletal and sports medicine.

The clinic 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.

We asked for CQC patient comment cards to be completed by patients in advance of the inspection. We received 77 completed comment cards, which were all positive about the standard of care received. Patients felt that the care and treatment they received was of a very high level, efficient and caring with all staff being polite, knowledgeable, respectful and helpful.

Our key findings were:

• The service had clear systems to respond to incidents and measures were taken to ensure incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and clinical staff were trained in basic life support.
• The service carried out risk assessments such as fire and health and safety to support the monitoring and mitigation of potential risks. There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety. For example, infection control practices were carried out appropriately and there were regular checks to ensure staff had access to personal protective equipment.
• Patients were provided with information about their procedures, possible side effects and after care.
• Systems were in place to protect personal information about patients.
• An induction programme was in place for all staff which included induction training linked to staff roles and responsibilities.
• Clinical staff were trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• The service encouraged and acted on feedback from patients. Patient survey information we reviewed as well as completed CQC comment cards showed that people who used the service were positive about their experience.
• Information about services and how to complain was available.
• The service had good facilities, including disabled access. It was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership and staff structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
• There were governance systems and processes in place to ensure the quality of service provision.

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

• Review systems to support patients who might need extra support such as patients whose first language was not English.
• Review systems to ensure staff receive appropriate ongoing or periodic supervision in their role.