You are here

Ultralase Eye Clinics Limited - Liverpool

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 7 December 2017

Ultralase Eye Clinics Limited Liverpool is operated by Ultralase Eye Clinics Limited. The service is for day cases only. Facilities include a theatre for the treatment of refractive eye conditions and rooms and equipment for assessment for suitability for surgery.

The service provides refractive eye treatment for adults and we inspected this service. There were 1341 treatments carried out in the period January 2016 to December 2016.The service did not treat children and young people.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 7 September 2017 along with an unannounced inspection on 8 September 2017.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We regulate refractive eye surgery but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them when they are provided as a single specialty service. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The clinic had robust processes in place to manage patient risk and to provide safe treatment for patients.

  • There had been no healthcare acquired infections at the clinic and theatres and clinics were visibly clean and tidy. There was an infection control policy andinfection control processes were audited.

  • We saw that the pre-assessment of patients to determine suitability for treatment was robust and that there were detailed discussions about the risks, benefits and side effects of all treatments.

  • There were robust consent processes in place for each type of treatment and patients had to sign at each stage of the process to show that they had read and understand each statement.

  • The clinic worked to guidance from the National Institute of Clinical and Health Excellence and the Royal College of Opthalmologists.

  • Staff were caring and there was positive patient feedback from surveys.

  • Staff said it was a good place to work and that they were supported by their manager.

However:

  • There was no information availalble in large print.

Ellen Armistead.

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (acute)

Inspection areas

Safe

Updated 7 December 2017

We do not currently have a legal duty to rate refractive eye surgery, where these services are provided as an independent healthcare single speciality service.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The hospital recorded incidents and there was feedback to staff through staff meetings and emails.

  • Infection control processes were in place and these were audited.

  • Staff had completed their mandatory training.

  • The hospital had systems in place to reduce the risk to patients.

  • Equipment was serviced appropriately.

  • Processes were in place to protect staff and patients in the use of cytotoxic medicines.

However:

  • The clinic did not have a policy for the duty of candour.

Effective

Updated 7 December 2017

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The clinic used guidance from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence and the Royal College of Opthalmologists.

  • Patients were offered pain relief when appropriate.

  • The clinic team worked well together and there was appropriate training and completion of competencies.

  • The surgeons had received appropriate training and continuing professional development to deliver the service.

    Consent processes were robust and patients had to sign to say that they had read and understood every part of the process.

Caring

Updated 7 December 2017

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The clinic did patient satisfaction surveys at each post-operative appointment. Feedback was mainly positive.

  • Staff explained to patients about treatment before they proceeded.

  • We saw that staff were kind to patients and made them feel relaxed before their treatment.

Responsive

Updated 7 December 2017

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • There was efficient access and flow through surgery with patients booked in small numbers to reduce waiting times.

  • Complaints were answered in a timely manner according to the organisational policy.

  • The hospital opened every day except Sunday from 8am to 6pm giving patients a choice of when they wished to attend the clinic.

  • Patients were given appropriate information so they could make a decision about treatment.

However:

  • There was no patient information available in large print.

Well-led

Updated 7 December 2017

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • There was a vision and strategy for the organisation that included the importance of staff and a focus on patients.

  • We saw that the surgeons had indemnity insurance and all the appropriate documentation had been completed for practising privileges.

  • There were regular updates for all staff who worked in the organisation in the form of meetings and conference calls.

  • Leadership was strong and staff said that it was a good place to work and that they were supported by their manager.