Archived: The Pemberdeen Laser Cosmetic Surgery Clinic Limited

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

Our overall rating of responsive at The Pemberdeen Laser Cosmetic Surgery Limited has gone down to inadequate. We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We could not check that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs as this was provided by a third-party provider whom we did not assess. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. However, we found that the building would not be suitable for those who had mobility issues and there were no risk assessments in place to address this. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people's needs.

This service scored 39 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The staff working at the service based patient care around individual needs and preferences. However, the hospital was not involved in ensuring that the patient explored their treatment choices. This was undertaken by a third party who used staff who worked regularly at the hospital to undertake this function of assessment of the fitness and expectations of patients for treatment. The responsibility for agreeing surgery and arranging the patients care prior to surgery lay with a third party organisation. There was no contract between the two organisations to outline where responsibilities lay.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. The service ensured that there was an emergency out-of-hours process. Medical staff were available to the staff operating the service to provide advice and support and patients were brough back to the hospital for review at regular intervals. However, we saw no communication with the patients general practitioner to ensure care that was joined up and provided continuity.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Translation services were via an internet-based application and were not available in person to ensure the efficacy of the translation. Whilst staff made notifications to the regulators there was no evidence that other bodies were notified. For instance we saw a breast implant register and were told that the information was sent to the national breast implant registry but we did not see any evidence of this occurring. Patient records were paper based and we saw that they were held at the nursing station whilst on the ward. However, we saw former patient records in un locked cupboards in the basement of the building. Therefore we could not be assured that all patient records were stored securely. We also noted that the service did not have any information on how long records should be kept for. We reviewed the website for patient information on the procedures offered. However, this was not available on the Pemberdeen Laser Cosmetic Surgery Clinic’s website.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service relied on an IT platform where patients could comment. However, when we reviewed the website the name of the hospital could not be found. Instead, we found recent comments under a previous name for the hospital. Therefore, we were not assured that prospective patients would be able to seek reviews on the service. The service has had two recent complaints. One of which involved the third-party company. The clinic manager was currently investigating the other. It was unclear how the service would learn from these complaints. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There were no reasonable adjustments made for people with mobility issues in the ward area. There was a functioning lift that connected the ground floor with the first floor. However, the design of the building would prohibit wheelchair access to ward areas. Most patients were day cases but should they require overnight observation there were sufficient medical and nursing staff available.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. The provider had not undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. The provider was unclear at to the level of staff who were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Staff within the service and the wider organisation did not promote a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. There was a patient feedback questionnaire available, but patients were not prompted to use this to share their views.