You are here

Accuvision Eye Care Clinic - Solihull

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 9 March 2018

Accuvision Ltd was established in London, UK in December 2001. The provider opened the Solihull clinic in May 2005.

Accuvision Laser Eye Clinic in Solihull is one of three clinics nationwide run by an independent healthcare provider. It primarily offers corneal laser vision correction surgery and treatments for short-sightedness (myopia), long-sightedness (hyperopia), astigmatism (a refractive error), keratoconus treatment (a progressive eye disease), age related long-sightedness (presbyopia) and access to non-laser cataract surgery through another provider.

We inspected Accuvision Solihull as part of our comprehensive programme, using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 31 October 2017 along with an unannounced visit to the clinic on 19 November 2017.

The Solihull clinic operates on an appointment basis depending on patients’ needs.

The provider mainly manages administrative work at the London clinic and the whole team of 20 staff work between all three of the clinic locations as needed.

On entry to the clinic ground floor there is a waiting room with refreshments available to patients, the clinic office, toilets, a consulting room and a diagnostic room, a preparation room and a laser treatment room.

The first floor consists of a combined waiting and recovery area, three consulting rooms, a cleaner’s room, store room and three toilets.

The second floor is restricted to staff access only and is primarily an administration and storage area with one staff toilet.

The clinic has parking available for patients and the ground floor is accessible to wheelchair users.

We inspected laser eye surgery.

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.

Services we do not rate

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.

Inspection areas

Safe

Updated 9 March 2018

Effective

Updated 9 March 2018

Caring

Updated 9 March 2018

Responsive

Updated 9 March 2018

Well-led

Updated 9 March 2018

Checks on specific services

Refractive eye surgery

Updated 16 February 2017

  • Clinical staff discussed any incidents or near misses.

  • Equipment was used safely. We found laser room protocols in place and health and safety processes and procedures were audited regularly

  • The clinic was clean, tidy and uncluttered. There were some procedures in place for infection control but no written policy available to staff at the clinic.

  • Good record keeping systems were in place and patients were assessed for any clinical risks or deterioration.

  • There was an on call system for out-of-hours urgent contact and there were sufficient numbers of ophthalmologists, optometrists, technicians and nurses available to treat and support patients through consultations and procedures during their appointments.

  • There were systems in place to check on the on-going competence of clinical and technical staff.

  • Some clinical audit was undertaken and these demonstrated positive outcomes for patients.

  • Information was made available to patients and prospective patients and the services were available on Saturdays.

  • Leadership was visible and the culture was open. The Director of the provider company had regular contact with staff and patients at the clinic.

However;

  • There was no clear incident reporting or learning mechanism in place. There was a risk that the Duty of Candour requirements could be overlooked.

  • Some patients’ records were incomplete some were not stored securely to protect patient confidentiality.
  • Poor management of pain relief record had not been identified through audit.
  • Governance arrangements were not sufficiently effective and did not provide assurance of the quality and safety of the quality of the service and managing risk.