Elements Medical

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as inadequate. At this assessment, the rating remains the same. The service was not in breach of any further legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment at this inspection.

This service scored 31 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. They did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately. At our October 2024 inspection, the provider did not have effective safeguarding systems, processes and practices which meant that people’s human rights were not upheld, and they were not protected from abuse, neglect and discrimination. At this January 2025 follow up inspection, we saw that staff had recently undertaken levels 1 & 2 safeguarding training to increase their awareness and knowledge of safeguarding issues. However, there was no accessible safeguarding policy on the provider’s shared drive system (where we were told that policies were accessed from). At our October 2024 inspection we saw that people were covertly filmed at the premises including while receiving treatment, without their knowledge or consent via closed-circuit television monitoring (CCTV). At this January 2025 follow up inspection, we saw that both cameras in the clinical rooms had been disconnected. Signs informing visitors that they were being filmed in non-clinical areas were visible in the waiting areas and on the exterior of the building.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. At our October 2024 inspection there were significant concerns relating to fire safety and emergency medicines and equipment. At this January 2025 revisit we saw that fire risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. Staff had been trained in basic fire safety and a practice evacuation drill had been undertaken with learning points identified. Fire marshals had undergone refresher training which gave them clarity about their roles and responsibilities. Medical oxygen was now suitably signposted and there was an evacuation chair available. The automated external defibrillator had been removed from the service but a risk assessment relating to this was in place. We saw that sharps bins were no longer overfilled, although there were some gaps in the correct assembly and labelling of these.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They did not always involve people in planning. At our October 2024 inspection the provider did not have systems and processes in place to ensure the safe and effective procurement and use of medicines. We found that some medicines (BOTOX) had been imported from Turkey without the appropriate licence. In addition, Bacteriostatic sodium chloride was being used which was for research purposes only according to the manufacture's website. Medicines were not stored in line with manufacturers recommendations as fridge temperatures were not monitored and in one room the fridge was turned off. The provider could therefore not be assured that medicines were fit for purpose. At this inspection, in January 2025, medicines had been purchased from a licensed UK wholesaler or pharmacy. The medicines at the service were fit for purpose, although as the provider was suspended, the medicines available were for non – regulated activities. However, this did include BOTOX and Bacteriostatic sodium chloride, both of which were stored in line with manufactures requirements and for human use. The main fridge which was located in the manager's office was checked daily and the temperatures were within range. Further work was needed to embed fridge temperature monitoring in the treatment rooms. Emergency medicines had been ordered and were in stock. According to the providers log sheets, checks of these were also taking place. Following our visit the provider had made the decision not to have an automated external defibrillator on site and guidance was available to staff regarding what to do in the event of a medical emergency. Signage had improved which directed people to where emergency medicines, including oxygen, were located. At this inspection we did not see that medicines had been obtained using private prescriptions for staff members.