• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: SH:24

2 Whitehorse Mews, 37 Westminster Bridge Road, London, SE1 7QD (020) 7620 2250

Provided and run by:
SH24 C.I.C.

All Inspections

25 April 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced focused inspection at SH: 24 on 25 April 2018 to follow up on breache of regulation found during the previous inspection.

We previously inspected SH: 24 on 12 July 2017. The full comprehensive report of this inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all services’ link for SH:24 on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

SH: 24 is a community interest company that aims to improve access to sexual and reproductive health care through the provision of online sexual and reproductive health services. The services include testing for HIV, syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhoea and the prescription of oral contraceptives and treatment of chlamydia.

Our findings in relation to the key question was as follows:

Are services safe? – We found the service was providing a safe service in accordance with the relevant regulations. Specifically:

  • A new system was in place to verify service user age to fulfil the age limitation requirements.


Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice

12 July 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at SH:24 on 12 July 2017.

SH: 24 is a community interest company that aims to improve access to sexual and reproductive health care through the provision of online sexual and reproductive health services. The services include testing for HIV, syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhoea and the prescription of oral contraceptives and treatment of chlamydia.

Overall, we found this service provided effective, caring, and responsive and well led services in accordance with the relevant regulations; however, we identified some areas relating to the safe provision of services where the provider must make improvements.

Our key findings were:

  • The service did not have processes in place to verify service user age to fulfil the age limitation requirements for all users.
  • There were systems in place to mitigate safety risks including analysing and learning from significant events and safeguarding.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the Duty of Candour.
  • There were appropriate procedures in place in relation to the recruitment of staff.
  • An induction programme was in place for all staff and we saw evidence where staff had received specific induction training.
  • Service users were treated in line with best practice guidance and appropriate medical records were maintained.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. We found the systems and processes in place to manage and investigate complaints were effective.
  • There was a comprehensive business plan with detailed short term and long term plans to improve service.
  • The service encouraged and acted on feedback from both patients and staff. Survey results showed that service users were very satisfied with the service as they rated the service 4.93 stars out of 5 for ease of access, rapidity of service and availability of support.
  • The service had a programme of ongoing quality improvement activity. It was a research led service and findings were implemented to improve service and user outcomes.

We saw one area of notable practice:

  • The service was research led and could demonstrate publication in peer reviewed journals where findings were shared with others nationally. Findings were implemented to improve service and user outcomes.
  • The service provided numerous information videos and blogs to improve patient outcomes. For example, there was a link to a video on blood taking for STI testing. The return rate for tests involving blood samples ranged between 78% and 96% (depending on geographical region). The return rate of the National HIV Testing Programme was 51% which was the best comparator in the absence of a national comparator.

We identified regulations that were not being met and the provider must:

  • Ensure arrangements are put in place to verify service user age to fulfil the age limitation requirements.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP

Chief Inspector of General Practice