Wimpole Clinic on Wilmslow Road in Manchester has been issued a formal warning by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) after inspectors found concerns over infection control, cleanliness, medicines, equipment and the way the service was being run.
The clinic received a Section 29 Warning Notice following an assessment by the CQC, the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. The regulator did not give the clinic an overall rating but found a breach of regulations relating to good governance.
Regulator details concerns
The CQC said: “We did not provide a rating for this service. During the assessment, we identified breaches of regulations relating to good governance. The assessment identified significant concerns in relation to infection prevention and control (IPC), governance, environmental hygiene, equipment management, medicines optimisation, and stock control.”
The regulator added: “Staff awareness of procedures was limited, oversight processes were weak, and documentation, maintenance, cleanliness, and medicines governance arrangements did not provide sufficient assurance of safety or compliance.”
Governance and management failures
Inspectors also found problems with the clinic's wider management systems. The CQC said: “Governance systems were ineffective in overseeing risk, quality, performance, and organisational learning, with weaknesses in audits, incident and complaint management, action tracking, and clinical oversight.”
The warning came after the regulator identified issues that went beyond paperwork and administration, including concerns around infection prevention and environmental hygiene.
Improvements and further concerns
The CQC said that following regulatory escalation, the provider had taken steps to address some of the problems. It said: “Following regulatory escalation, the provider implemented substantial improvements, including a deep clean, removal of the steriliser, and demonstrable improvements in IPC practices.”
The regulator also found that some aspects of the clinic's arrangements were stronger. It said: “Information governance arrangements were stronger, with evidence of clear staff responsibilities for maintaining patient confidentiality.”
However, further concerns emerged when the CQC reviewed information provided by the clinic. The watchdog explained: “Further concerns were identified following our review of the provider's submitted data and information, which highlighted additional shortcomings in oversight and governance.”
Inspectors were unable to speak with patients using the service as it was an unannounced visit, but added: "We observed 1 surgical procedure and while the person expressed, they were happy with their care, our assessment found elements of the care did not meet the expected standards. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed."
As a result, the CQC issued the formal Section 29 warning in relation to good governance. The warning does not mean that the CQC has concluded that every patient treated at the clinic was harmed. Rather, it records the regulator's concerns about the systems and processes the provider had in place to manage risks and maintain the quality and safety of its service.
The formal intervention will put further pressure on the clinic to demonstrate that the problems identified by inspectors have been properly addressed and that systems are in place to prevent them from recurring. The clinic has been contacted for comment.
