We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 5 September 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

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.

InHealth Limited provides an Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) and Audiology Hearing Aid Service at the Weston Lane Centre for Healthy Living under an NHS contract for adults only. Services are accessed via the NHS Choose and Book system and referrals triaged by the Inhealth patient referral centre.

The service is registered with CQC to provide the regulated activities: diagnostic and screening procedures; and treatment of disease, disorder. The types of services provided are doctors consultation service and doctors treatment service.

At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in place. 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 received five completed CQC comment cards from patients who used the service. Feedback was very positive about the service delivered at the service.

Our key findings were:

• Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure

patient's safety and welfare.

• All treatment rooms were well-organised and well-equipped.
• Staff told us the service was for people over 16 years of age only.
• Clinicians assessed patients according to appropriate guidance and standards, such as those issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.
• Staff were up to date with current guidelines and were led by a proactive management team.
• Staff maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients.
• There were effective systems in place to check all equipment had been serviced regularly.
• The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
• The provider had an effective system for ensuring the identity of patients who attended the service.
• Risks to patients were well-managed. For example, there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
• Patients were provided with information about their health and received advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
• Information about how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• The provider had appropriate governance systems in place to promote safe, effective and well led service provision.

However, there are areas where the provider should make improvements:

• Review signage to inform patients that a hearing loop is available for use.
• Review arrangements for infection control procedures.

On the day of our visit, there were Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) and Audiology clinics being run. For ENT patients, the service was run by a GP with Specialist Interest (GPwSI). They were supported by ENT specialists. Nurse Practitioner Aural Care Clinics were also offered at the same time. However, this clinic was not running on the day of our inspection. Having been assessed most patients were managed and followed up within the service where possible.

We spoke with four patients, two relatives, two members of staff, registered manager and the GPwSI. All the patients were pleased with the service they received and said the staff were excellent. They told us they had no reason to complain and felt the staff “explained things really well and made sure I had enough supplies to take home with me”. One person was pleased to be “offered an appointment that day which meant they did not have to take time off work”.

Patient’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. They experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Patients were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. They were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that patients received.