Somerset Ear Microsuction

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were supported to understand their condition and were involved in planning for their care needs. They were also involved in decisions about their care. Feedback from people who used the service included that staff explained the procedure, possible side effects, and follow-up care thoroughly. They were given opportunities to ask questions and seek clarification before proceeding with the procedure.

The service understood the health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, and supported continuity.

The service worked in partnership with the local primary care network (PCN) by providing services to people referred by the PCN. (A PCN is a group of general practices that work together to provide a wider range of services to the local population.)

If complete ear wax removal could not be achieved in a single appointment, people were advised to return for another appointment to complete the procedure without additional charge. People would be referred to relevant services if they required further treatment that could not be provided at the service.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up to date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service’s website provided detailed information about the procedure, potential complications, aftercare advice and fees of the service. People who preferred to book appointments by telephone were also provided with the same information during their call with the service. People’s feedback highlighted that information was clearly explained to them during the appointment. The staff also used diagrams to assist with explanations.

However, there was no post procedure leaflet available at the service. After we raised this to the service during our onsite visit, the service identified this as an area for improvement and immediately developed the leaflet for people who wish to keep a copy for reference after the procedure.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service regularly contacted people for their feedback after the procedure and displayed contact details of CQC in their treatment room to enable people to feedback directly to CQC. We received 12 people’s feedback in the past 12 months which were all positive.

The service had a complaints policy which included the option to escalate complaints to an external organisation if people were not satisfied with the outcome. The service had not received any formal complaints but shared documentation of examples on how they followed up with people’s feedback. They reviewed all feedback to identify any learning or improvement. The service provided an example where a person reported a condition following a microsuction procedure. However, further communication identified the reported condition was either unrelated to the procedure or a known infection complication that had been explained to the person beforehand. The service concluded that they had followed infection prevention and control (IPC) measures during procedures and would continue to maintain current IPC precautions.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could book appointments using an online form on the service’s website, by email or by telephone. The service was open Monday to Friday. All available appointment slots were clearly displayed on the website which was kept up to date, allowing people to choose the date and time that was most convenient for them. During the onsite visit, we observed the next available appointment was on the following working day. Feedback from people who use the service included it was very easy to book their appointments.

The service was on the ground floor, and a ramp and automatic door had been fitted to the entrance. The service was equipped with hearing loop system for people with hearing impairment.

However, the service currently did not have access to interpretation services, and they had not previously required this. Following the assessment, the service told us they were in the process of exploring options for telephone interpretation services to support potential communication needs.

Leaders understood the needs of people using the service and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes. Staff described how they adjusted the set-up during procedures to accommodate people's individual needs. They also adapted their communication approach according to each person's level of understanding, helping to ensure people felt informed and supported. Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service.

Somerset Ear Microsuction is an independent health service, providing private ear wax removal service by microsuction. This quality statement is not relevant for this service.