We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 4 April 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 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.

The service is a private travel clinic located in Canary Wharf, London.

Our key findings were:

• The service had systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety, and reliable systems for appropriate and safe handling of medicines. The service learned from, and made changes as a result of, incidents and complaints.

• The service assessed need and delivered care in line with current legislation, standards and evidence based guidance, and reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided through clinical audits.

• The service gave patients a full travel health assessment and tailored immunisation plan, taking into account medical history, the destination and method of travel and any associated risks.

• The service treated patients with kindness, respect and compassion, and patient feedback was positive about the service experienced.

• The service organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. The service also carried out off site visits, for example to schools, and had policies and processes in place to support these visits.

• There was a clear leadership structure in place, and staff told us that they felt able to raise concerns and were confident that these would be addressed.

• The service had a governance framework in place, which supported the delivery of quality care, and processes for managing risks, issues and performance.

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

• Consider the necessity to calibrate equipment such as blood pressure monitoring equipment.

• Review anaphylaxis training scenario assessments to ensure they reflect up to date guidelines regarding chest compressions.

• Consider reviewing recruitment processes to ensure relevant risk assessments are carried out for staff.

• Consider the necessity for interpretation services for patients whose first language is not English.