Archived: Nuffield Health Wellbeing Centre Manchester

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Nuffield Health Wellbeing Centre Manchester on 23 November 2017 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.

Background Information

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 Wellbeing Centre Manchester provides health assessments that include a range of screening processes. Following the assessment and screening process patients undergo a consultation with a doctor to discuss the findings and any recommended lifestyle changes or treatment planning. The centre also provides private GP services.

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.

Our key findings were:

• The service had clear systems to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
• A system was in place for reporting, investigating and learning from significant events and incidents.
• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies and staff were trained in basic life support.
• There were systems in place to reduce risks to patient safety. For example, infection control practices were carried out appropriately and there were regular checks on the environment and equipment used.
• Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
• Feedback from patients about the care and treatment they received was very positive.
• Patients were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.
• Patients were treated in line with best practice guidance and appropriate medical records were maintained.
• Patients were provided with information about their health and with advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
• Systems were in place to protect personal information about patients.
• An induction programme was in place for all staff and staff received specific induction training prior to treating patients.
• Staff were well supported with training and professional development opportunities. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Staff had access to all standard operating procedures and policies.
• The service encouraged and acted on feedback from both patients and staff.

• Patient survey information we reviewed showed that people who used the service had given positive feedback about their experience.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and improvements were made as a result of patient feedback.
• The service had good facilities, including disabled access. It was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
• There was a clear leadership and staff structure and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
• There was a clear vision to provide a safe and high quality service.

• There were clinical governance systems and processes in place to ensure the quality of service provision.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice