The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Eudelo

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

63 Bondway, London, SW8 1SJ (020) 7118 9500

Provided and run by:
Eudelo Medical Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Eudelo on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Eudelo, you can give feedback on this service.

26 June 2019

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 13 February 2018.)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Eudelo on 26 June 2019 as part of our current inspection programme. We previously inspected this service on 13 February 2018 using our previous methodology, where we did not apply ratings.

Eudelo (which is an abbreviation of European Dermatology London) is an independent provider of medical dermatology, and non-surgical cosmetic procedures not regulated by the CQC. It is based in the London Borough of Lambeth. Services are provided on a fee-paying basis.

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 regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Eudelo provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions (known as aesthetic dermatology), for example smoothing wrinkles and facial hair removal. These interventions are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

One of the organisation’s directors is the registered manager. 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 32 completed CQC comment cards which were all extremely positive about the service:

  • Patients commented that the staff were professional and caring, the environment was clean and comfortable, and that options were thoroughly and patiently explained.
  • Almost all patients commented that they were extremely happy with the outcomes of their procedures and treatment.
  • Many patients said that they felt they were not pressured into choosing unnecessary or inappropriate treatments.
  • Some patients said the service and results achieved were superior to what they had experienced previously at other providers.

Our key findings were:

  • The service provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for recording, reporting and learning from significant events and incidents. The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents happened, the service learned from them and reviewed their processes to implement improvements.
  • There were clearly defined and embedded systems, processes and practices to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse, and for identifying and mitigating risks of health and safety.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • The service organised and delivered services to meet patients’ needs. Patients said that they could access care and treatment in a timely way.
  • The service reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines and best practice.
  • Patients told us that all staff treated them with kindness and respect and that they felt involved in discussions about their treatment options.
  • Patient satisfaction with the service was consistently high.
  • Clinical staff had the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • The service took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.

We saw an example of outstanding practice:

  • The service used an integrated range of comprehensive information technology systems to manage and share information in real time to support the delivery of care and treatment. This included an advanced digital patient management platform, a digital recall system and a laboratory results logging system. An electronic daily log was used to manage incidents, significant events and patient feedback, and this was accessible to all staff.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGPChief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

13 February 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 13 February 2018 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

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.

Eudelo (an abbreviation of European Dermatology London) is an independent provider of medical services. The service provides medical dermatology, and also aesthetic procedures which are not regulated by the CQC. Services are provided from 63 Bondway, Vauxhall, London, SW8 1SJ in the London borough of Lambeth. All of the services provided are private and are therefore fee paying, no NHS services are provided at Eudelo.

The service is open Monday to Friday from 9am to 7pm and Saturday 9am to 4pm. The service has practitioners on call out of hours in the event that existing patients need to speak to clinicians, but does not offer elective care outside of these hours.

The premise is located on the lower ground floor. The property is leased by the provider and the premises consist of a patient reception area, and eight consulting rooms.

The service is operated by two Directors, one of whom is the manager of the service and the other a Dermatologist who is also Medical Director. The service also employs three further dermatologists, two aesthetic doctors, five medical aestheticians, a clinic manager, a treatment co-ordinator, four receptionists and an administrator.

The Director who manages the service is the registered manager. 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. The service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide the regulated activity of treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

As part of our inspection we asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received 30 comment cards which were all extremely positive about the standard of care received, across the services offered. Comments included that staff, were kind, caring, polite, friendly, helpful and patients said they were treated with dignity and respect. Comments about the service included that the clinic was clean and hygienic. We spoke with two patients during the inspection who said they were very satisfied with the care they received and told us that appointments ran on time that they were not rushed, that they were involved in their care and treatment and that the provider provided an excellent level of service.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had systems in place to manage significant events.
  • Risks to patients were always assessed and managed, the service held emergency medicines and equipment.
  • Policies and procedures were in place to govern all relevant areas.
  • The service had an infection control policy and had carried out an audit. The rooms and all equipment were clean, although clinicians did not record when they were cleaning specific clinical equipment before and after use.
  • Clinicians assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance.
  • The service had systems in place to monitor operative outcomes.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • Patients were provided with information relating to their condition and where relevant how to manage their condition at home.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • The clinic sought feedback from patients, which showed that a large majority of patients were satisfied with the service they had received.
  • The clinic was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

  • Consider reviewing the care provided by individual clinicians in addition to the outcome based audits that are already in place.
  • Consider implementing a checklist for the cleaning of clinical equipment.
  • Ensure that identification is verified for patients, parents and carers attending the service.