We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 3 October 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.

This 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. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The service is registered for the provision of treatment and advice by a medical practitioner. The primary aim of the clinic is to support and treat males with low testosterone through testosterone deficiency syndrome (TDS) and provide testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) where needed.

We received 26 Care Quality Commission comment cards and eight emails. These were positive regarding the environment, staff, efficiency of service, care delivered and the caring attitude of the provider. Many clients stated that the service was professional, and that staff took time to explain the process to them. They found the provider professional and would recommend the service to others.

Our key findings were:

• The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis and was accessible to people who chose to use it.
• Procedures were safely managed and there were effective levels of client support and aftercare advice.
• There were systems, processes and practices in place to safeguard clients from abuse.
• Information for clients was comprehensive and accessible. Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.
• The service encouraged and valued feedback from clients via the website.

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

• Review the need for medicines used in emergencies, for example, in the event of anaphylaxis (a severe potentially life-threatening allergic reaction).