CREATE Fertility, London Wimbledon

CREATE Fertility Wimbledon presents as a small, personable clinic with a clear strength in hands-on nursing care and individual staff members who are deeply valued by patients. Across the reviews there is a recurring pattern: clinical staff — particularly named nurses and one consultant, Dr Nagi Rostom — receive warm praise for empathy, clear communication and technical competence. Several patients describe nurses who adjusted protocols responsively, provided daily follow-up calls after procedures, and delivered reassurance during complex experiences such as abdominal egg collection and ectopic pregnancy. These personal interactions create a calming, intimate atmosphere that many patients explicitly credit for helping them through emotionally taxing cycles and, in several cases, for contributing to successful pregnancies. Clinically, the centre appears competent with routine assisted reproduction pathways: patients report IVF and ICSI cycles, day-3 embryo transfers, egg collection procedures, and use of a “mild” stimulation protocol popular with people who have endometriosis/adenomyosis. For some patients the mild-protocol approach and the clinic’s technical execution produced excellent outcomes (including successful NHS-funded IVF/ICSI resulting in births). Abdominal egg collection was specifically described as straightforward and well-managed by the team, indicating confidence in procedural skill and perioperative care for more complex retrievals. However, the reviews consistently flag administrative and communication weaknesses. Several patients report fragmented administration: changing patient coordinators, no single regular point of contact, long telephone hold times (20–30 minutes), difficulty getting clear answers, and occasional hidden costs. These organisational issues appear to undermine patient confidence even when clinical care is strong. One reviewer felt the advertised success rates did not reflect the clinic’s demographic mix and warned that care appeared less tailored for unexplained infertility or medically complex cases; another worried that protocols were not sufficiently adapted when ovarian response differed from expectations. There is also at least one report of a consultant with poor bedside manner, a reminder that interpersonal experience can vary by clinician. Emotionally the clinic is seen as supportive largely because of the nursing team and some named doctors; patient coordinators elicit mixed feedback depending on continuity and responsiveness. Wait times for phone contact and administrative hand-offs are genuine pain points. Recurring themes are therefore: very positive, individualized nursing care and personable doctors; technically competent procedural work (egg retrievals, transfers, mild protocols); and inconsistent, sometimes poor administration and communication that can impact patient experience. For prospective patients, this clinic may suit those seeking a more intimate, nurse-led environment and mild stimulation approaches, but people with complex or unexplained infertility should clarify care pathways and administrative continuity upfront.