Archived: MASTA Travel Clinic - Liverpool

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 20 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.

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.

MASTA Travel Clinic Liverpool provides pre-travel assessments, travel vaccinations and travel health advice.

This service is registered with 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. Those occupational health related services provided to clients under a contractual arrangement through their employer or government department are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, they did not fall into the scope of our inspection.

As part of our inspection we asked for Care Quality Commission comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection visit. We received 17 comment cards, all of which were positive about the standard of care received.

Our key findings in respect of the regulations were:

• Systems were in place to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse. When mistakes occurred lessons were learned.
• There were effective arrangements in place for the management of vaccines and medicines.
• The service had arrangements in place to respond to medical emergencies.
• Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
• Patient survey information and Care Quality Commission (CQC) comment cards reviewed indicated that patients were very satisfied with the service they received. Patients commented that they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
• Information about services and how to complain was available.
• There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management and worked very well together as a team.
• The provider was aware of and complied with the duty of candour.

• There was an additional safety mechanism on the service’s computer system which preselected the actual vaccinations to be given to ensure only in date vaccinations were administered and correct serial numbers recorded.

• Patients were given a travel health passport that contained a record of any vaccinations, useful information and contacts for when they were abroad. This included advice about drinking water and food and what to do if a patient was bitten by animals or insects.