You are here

Holderness Laser Clinic Limited - Hull Road Hessle

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 January 2014
Date of Publication: 18 February 2014
Inspection Report published 18 February 2014 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 23 January 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

Feedback from people who used the service and staff was obtained through the use of satisfaction questionnaires and regular staff meetings. This information was analysed by the provider and where necessary action was taken to make changes or improvements to the service. The staff who spoke with us said they could discuss any work issues as a team and that there was good support offered by the manager.

The manager told us that as they were such a small staff group they met regularly to discuss people’s treatment, changes within the service and to talk about any issues or worries. However, these meetings were informal and were not recorded. The provider may find it useful to note that without these meeting minutes the provider may find it difficult to evidence how staff opinions and views of the service were gathered and/or what information about changes/improvements to the service was passed onto the staff.

We spoke with one person who used the service during this visit and gathered the views of other people by looking at their comments in 25 satisfaction questionnaires completed in 2013. People had written that they were satisfied with the treatments they received and the majority had rated as excellent the arranging of appointments, explanation of the treatments available, the treatment itself, the efficiency and courtesy of the staff and their overall impression of the service. One person told us “I would not go anywhere else for my treatments, I am thoroughly satisfied here.”

Our observations of the service found that the environment was clean, tidy and hygienic. We saw that the service had emergency and business continuity plans in place for dealing with emergencies which were reasonably expected to arise from time to time, such as a power outage or loss of water supply.

One technician had completed audits over the last six months for record keeping and any issues were noted and left with the manager to take action. The provider may find it useful to note that there was no written evidence of the issues raised and how they were dealt with. Without this documented evidence the provider may find it difficult to demonstrate how quality and working practice within the service was monitored and appropriate action taken to improve the service.

We found that people had access to the complaints policy and procedure in the consultation guide. It informed people about how they could raise any concerns they might have and who to address their complaints in writing to. We saw that the clinic had a formal complaints form for people to complete if needed.

Checks of the complaints record within the service and information we hold about the service indicated that no complaints had been received about the service in the last 12 months.