• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Midlands Eye Care C.I.C

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

59 New Street, Burton On Trent, Staffordshire, DE14 3QY (01283) 561320

Provided and run by:
Midlands Eye Care C.I.C

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

14 July 2022

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Midlands Eye Care Limited on 14 July 2022 as part of our inspection programme.

This service is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Midlands Eye Care C.I.C provides a range of optometry services which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services. Midlands Eye Care C.I.C is registered in respect of the provision of the diagnostic and screening services, treatment of disease, disorder or injury and surgical procedures; therefore we were only able to inspect treatments relating to medical conditions such as glaucoma, cataracts and retinal conditions.

Miss R Harrison is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

  • The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis only and was accessible to patients who chose to use it. Patients were able to access care and treatment from the service within an appropriate timescale for their needs.
  • The service provided care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Patients received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Systems, processes and records had been established to seek consent and to offer coordinated and person-centred care.
  • The clinicians maintained the necessary skills and competence to support patients’ needs.
  • The provider and staff team demonstrated a positive culture and a commitment to the delivery of person-centred care and treatment.
  • The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure outstanding recruitment information is available in staff files.
  • Ensure sharps boxes are correctly labelled and clinical waste stored in a secure area while awaiting collection.
  • Ensure safe storage of cleaning equipment.
  • Continue taking action following feedback received.
  • Action the planned discussions with identified consultants whose appointments times tended to run late.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

23 June 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection to follow up on one area of non-compliance from our previous inspection. We did not speak with patients who used the service during this visit. However, we spoke with staff, reviewed the records relating to medication and checked how medication was stored.

The provider had introduced a system for clearly recording the medication name, strength, site of administration, time, date and signature in patient notes.

Medication was stored securely and appropriately when the clinic was not operating. The provider had introduced a system for recording the amount of single dose units of medication remaining in open boxes plus any additional stock.

4 October 2013

During a routine inspection

People received care and treatment appropriate to their needs. People using the service told us their treatment had been fully explained to them and met their expectations.

Information about the treatments provided was available in the service and on their web site. These were available in different formats to support people to understand their condition and treatments offered.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the treatment and care provided. People's comments included, 'I'd recommend this service to anybody. If it wasn't for the staff here, I wouldn't see as well as I could. They've been marvellous.'

Accurate records were not maintained of medicines stored and administered in the service. This meant the medication systems in place were not safe.

At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.

5 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection as part of our schedule of inspections to check on the care and welfare of people using this service. The inspection was unannounced, which meant the registered provider and the staff did not know we were coming. We spoke with two people about how the service was delivered and the quality of service provision.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the treatment and care provided. People's comments included, 'I came here because I was impressed with the treatment I received here before.' 'I came here on recommendation, and wasn't disappointed. The treatment you receive here is excellent.'

People using the service told us they had received an assessment to check their eyes, and the staff had given them information about the risks and benefits of the surgery, and what to expect after they had received treatment.

We saw where people received any treatment, a consent form had been signed. This demonstrated that people understood the treatment to be provided. The information included any risks.and explained about consenting to surgical procedures. This meant there was evidence to show people understood and agreed to the treatment.