We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 30 January 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.

Nuffield Health and Wellbeing Centre Crabbet Lane Crawley is part of Nuffield Health, a not-for-profit healthcare provider. They provide health assessments that include a range of screening processes. Following an assessment and screening process patients undergo a consultation with a doctor to discuss the findings of the results and any recommended lifestyle changes or treatment planning. The health assessment clinic is based within the fitness centre. Patients seen in the clinic are either private patients or employees of organisations who are provided with health and wellbeing services as part of their employee benefit package. The services are provided to adults privately and are not commissioned by the NHS.

The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. For example, physiotherapy and lifestyle coaching do not fall within the regulated activities for which the location is registered with CQC.

We obtained 11 completed Care Quality Commission comment cards. Feedback was very positive about the service provided and the professionalism and friendliness of the staff.

Our key findings were:

• There was a transparent approach to safety with demonstrably effective systems in place for reporting and recording incidents
• The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis to adults only.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• All health assessment rooms were well organised and equipped.
• There were systems in place to check all equipment had been serviced regularly, including blood screening equipment.
• Clinicians regularly assessed patients according to appropriate guidance and standards such as those issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
• Staff maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients.
• Staff were up to date with current guidelines and were led by a proactive management team.
• Risks to patients were well managed. For example, there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.
• Staff were kind, caring, competent and put patients at their ease.
• Patients were provided with information about their health and with advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
• The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

The clinic promoted people's privacy and dignity. The provider had made reasonable adjustments to reflect the needs and diversity of people who used the service. People were given written information about screening procedures. Before people received an Exercise Electrocardiogram (ECG) they were asked for their written consent.

The provider carried out individualised assessments based on people’s health and lifestyle choices. People received treatment which was planned in a way that ensured their welfare. Staff members were trained to deal with emergency situations. There were contingency plans in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

People told us they were satisfied with their treatment at the clinic and would recommend the service to family and friends.

Staff working at the clinic were suitably qualified. They had the skills and experience to keep people safe and meet their health and welfare needs. One person wrote in their feedback, “(The doctor) is a first class doctor that has been most helpful, personable and very knowledgeable in all clinical matters. I would have no worries in recommending her and hope to see her again in my next medical”.

The provider had taken steps to ensure that people using the service had been adequately protected by using effective recruitment processes and criminal record checking.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision through feedback and audits. Improvements were put into place as a result of people's comments. The provider had an effective procedure in place to deal with incidents, risks and complaints.

We saw that the centre was clean and comfortable and promoted people's privacy and dignity. People were given information about screening procedures and their views and comments were taken into account through feedback.

People told us that they were satisfied with their treatment and the professionalism of staff. People had their individual needs assessed before commencing screening procedures and were given detailed information, including risks and contraindications.

We looked around the premises and saw that it was safe, accessible, comfortable and clean. The rooms were well equipped and maintained people's dignity and privacy. There were contingency plans in place for emergency situations.

The provider and other members of staff working at the clinic were suitably qualified and had the skills and experience to keep people safe and meet their health and welfare needs.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision through feedback and audits. The provider effectively dealt with incidents, risks and complaints. People felt confident to discuss their concerns with staff if the situation were to arise.

We found that the provider offered a comprehensive health screening service. People who used the service told us that they had received sufficient information prior to the consultation and that they had an explanation of each test undertaken and were given screening test results promptly.

We looked at the choices offered to people who used the service, and the safety and protection of people. Staff told us that they received regular training . We saw that staff were supervised regularly and were appraised annually. The quality of the service was monitored regularly.