You are here

Sk:n - Manchester Albert Square

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 September 2013
Date of Publication: 8 October 2013
Inspection Report published 08 October 2013 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

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 11 September 2013, talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Peoples views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

We spoke with five people who used the service and asked them about how the staff involved them in their treatments. They confirmed they were given information about their treatments during an initial consultation during which time they had opportunity to ask questions and talk about their concerns. They said the staff were very kind and spoke to them in a polite and friendly manner. One person said, "The doctor explained everything to me including all the possible side effects. I had a few questions to ask myself and these were answered thoroughly." This meant the people who used the service understood their treatments, the prices and choices available to them.

The waiting area provided lots of information on the treatments provided by the clinic which people could take away with them and read at their leisure. All treatments took place in separate rooms and a chaperone was available if people asked for this service. This meant people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

The provider obtained feedback from people after their treatments. This gave the people who used the service an opportunity to tell the staff about their experience of using the service. This provided staff with information on how they may adapt and improve the service to meet people’s needs.

The manager explained that people’s consent to care and treatment was always obtained. The people who used the service confirmed they were asked to sign a consent form before any treatments were given. We looked at five case files and each one contained a signed consent form. This meant the provider had respected people’s rights and involved them in the decision making process.