• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

National Unplanned Pregnancy Advisory Service Manchester

79 Newton Street, Manchester, M1 1EX 0333 004 6666

Provided and run by:
National Unplanned Pregnancy Advisory Service Limited

All Inspections

7 June 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

  • There was a clear process in place for the recording and investigating of incidents and staff were aware of the process. Systems were in place to share learning from incidents should they occur.
  • Staff were familiar with the Duty of Candour (DOC) regulations and recognised the importance of informing patients when things went wrong. A policy for Duty of Candour had been developed and staff training had commenced in March 2016.
  • The service had clear systems in place to identify and report any safeguarding concerns. Staff were familiar with the service’s safeguarding policy and were aware of female genital mutilation and child sexual exploitation risks. All staff had completed training in safeguarding adults and children to level 2 (intermediate) and level 3 (advanced) standard.
  • All the areas we visited were visibly clean and tidy. Cleaning schedules were in place and we observed evidence that these were being completed. Equipment was being suitably maintained and calibrated. Daily comprehensive checks were in place for resuscitation equipment which was readily available and easily located on the premises.
  • The service had no medical or nursing staff vacancies and at the time of our inspection the full establishment of staff were on duty. The service had an induction checklist for new staff which included orientation to the environment and awareness of service policies.
  • The service provided care and treatment that took account of best practice policies and evidence based guidelines. The service had clear standards agreed with commissioners and key performance indicators to monitor performance and service delivery in line with RSOP16.
  • Staff had received an appraisal in the 12 months prior to our inspection. The service was supporting nurses to undertake the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare diploma. This would ensure that nurses were competent to deliver all methods of contraception including LARCs.
  • Appropriate systems were in place to obtain consent from patients and consent was well documented in the patient record.
  • The service provided a 24 hour telephone advice/help line that patients could use for information, support, or post-operative concerns.
  • Feedback from people who used the service was positive about the way they were treated. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff and we observed staff being considerate and compassionate to patients. Patients felt involved in decisions about their care and treatment options were clearly communicated and explained.
  • The service offered counselling to all patients who underwent a termination. The service was provided by diploma level trained counsellors and was offered to patients throughout the care pathway. The service also worked closely with support groups such Nestac (FGM group) and the local sexual assault referral centre to ensure patients received the appropriate support.
  • People were able to access services in a timely manner and the service was performing within the recommended target timeframes.
  • For patients requesting a coil to be fitted as their preferred long acting reversible contraceptive the service offered a monthly clinic in the evenings so that patients that worked during the day could access the service.
  • People were given information how to complain and raise concerns and the service responded to complaints.
  • The service philosophy was to “provide a high level of care to women seeking termination of pregnancy within a non-judgemental manner. Offering confidential, supportive advice and treatment to all women”. Staff we spoke with echoed the key principles of the philosophy in terms of providing a non-judgemental, supportive and confidential service. Staff we spoke with enjoyed their job and were compassionate and proud of the care they gave.
  • The service produced a quarterly quality and risk assurance report that monitored performance against agreed standards, the number of complaints received, the number and nature of incidents reported, any safeguarding concerns and patient feedback.
  • A management meeting was held each month to discuss governance matters such as incidents (and trends across the region), audits, operational issues and information governance issues.
  • There were robust systems in place to ensure HSA1 forms were completed and in line with regulatory requirements.

However,

  • We observed clinical staff not washing their hands prior to performing diagnostic testing and not all clinical staff were bare below the elbows in clinical areas.
  • Audits were limited to corporate areas such as infection control, medicines management and records. There was limited evidence of the use of clinical audit to identify and understand issues and drive service improvement and patient outcomes.
  • There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. The previous manager had left in May 2016 and the recruitment process for a new manager was underway.

24 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we spoke with two people who were using the service. The feedback we received was very positive and people felt that they had received a good standard of care and support.

One patient commented, 'Everyone has been so nice and helpful. I didn't understand things and I didn't know what I wanted but they have talked me through everything. They have told me about the options and explained them really well.' Another comment we received was, 'I was very worried about the whole process and didn't know what to expect. The nurse reassured me about my worries and made sure I thoroughly understood. She put me at ease with my fears.'

We inspected standards relating to the care and welfare of people who used the service and processes to protect the rights of people with limited capacity to consent to treatment. We also looked at arrangements for dealing with complaints and monitoring the quality and safety of the service. Staff selection and recruitment was also an area that we assessed. We did not have any concerns about any of the areas we inspected.

8 January 2013

During a routine inspection

There was a range of information available and we saw that patients were treated with respect and courtesy and were given privacy and dignity during consultations. We saw that patients were offered choices of treatment and that a clear explanation was given

about each option. After care was discussed with each patient.

We spoke with one patient who said of the staff "they were very kind." She also told us that she had been nervous about attending the clinic but had been looked after well and found it a positive experience.

14 March 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

The visit was part of a responsive review programme initiated at Fraterdrive Ltd, following concerns raised in relation to breaches of the Abortion Act 1967, at another location.

We did not speak with people who used the service on this occasion.