We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 10 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.

Sportswise Limited was founded in 1997 and provides medical, physiotherapy and allied health support to patients who have sustained a sports related injury or who suffer from musculoskeletal injury or disorder to patients privately and are not commissioned by the NHS. The service is registered for two activities, Treatment of Disease, Disorder or Injury and Diagnostic and screening procedures (Ultrasound). The provider is located on the ground floor in a building within the Eastbourne campus of the University of Brighton. Services are provided Monday to Thursday 8am to 8.30pm, Friday 8am to 5.30pm and on Saturday from 8.30am to 12.30pm. Services are provided to adults and children aged five to eighteen years of age.

The medical director, 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.

31 people provided feedback about the service both face to face and via comment cards all of which was positive about the standard of care they received. The service was described as excellent, professional, helpful and caring.

Our key findings were:

• There was a transparent approach to safety with demonstrably effective systems in place for reporting and recording incidents.
• The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based research or guidelines.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
• The practice was proactive in seeking patient feedback and identifying and solving concerns.
• The culture of the service encouraged candour, openness and honesty.
• Staff were up to date with current guidelines and were led by a proactive management team.
• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.
• There were systems in place to check all equipment had been serviced regularly.

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

• Review the procedure of receiving and cascading MHRA alerts.
• Review infection control procedures and whether to replace the dignity curtain in the treatment area.
• Review the process of DBS checks for chaperones in order to ensure that fit and proper persons are employed.
• Review whether to install a hearing loop and consider providing access to an interpreter service.
• Review whether to provide a written business continuity plan.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of patients who used the service. We observed interaction between staff and patients. We reviewed records and systems and looked at the environment and how this impacted on the service delivery.

We spoke with four patients who had attended for an appointment and treatment on the day of the inspection visit. We spoke with staff, that included; the practice manager, the medical director, a physiotherapist and a receptionist.

Patients told us that they were happy with the care, support and treatment provided at Sportswise Limited. We were told that enough information was shared and explained to them, which meant they had a good understanding before they gave consent for treatments.

We reviewed the facilities and practice in relation to infection control. We found that risks associated with cross infection had been assessed and the premises were clean.

We reviewed the recruitment practice and associated documentation. We found that Sportswise Limited followed robust recruitment processes for clinical staff employed.

We looked at a number of records and found that these had been managed and completed in a consistent manner.

We spoke with three patients and three patient representatives. People told us that they were happy with the care, support and treatment provided at Sportswise Limited. Comments received include, ‘’We are very pleased with the service, they have given us a diagnosis and worked closely with us taking the time to listen to the symptoms.’’ Another patient said, ’’My treatment and diagnosis was explained clearly to me, I am fully satisfied with my treatment plan and the costs involved.’’

Patients told us they were given choices about their care and treatment and were looked after in a respectful way.

We looked at the systems and processes that the practice had in place to ensure the environment was safe. These ensured a safe and well maintained practice for patients, staff and visitors.

We looked at the staffing arrangements and found sufficient and suitable staff working in the practice.

We looked at the systems and processes the practice had in place to respond to complaints. These processes ensured complaints could be raised and resolved to people's satisfaction.