You are here

Sk:n - Manchester Albert Square

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 1 May 2012
Date of Publication: 29 May 2012
Inspection Report published 29 May 2012 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

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

User experience

We were not able to speak to people using the service during this review. We saw evidence that the provider regularly sought feedback from people using the service and this feedback was very positive.

Other evidence

People who use the service were asked for their views about their care and treatment and their comments were acted on. The manager told us that people using the service were sent an email after each appointment asking them to rate various aspects of the service they received. The results were then analysed in relation to each member of staff. The results from April 2012 were displayed in the manager’s office. Patient feedback was mostly positive for all staff involved in the cosmetic surgery part of the business. The manager told us that where people had made negative comments they were contacted to see if anything could be done to improve their experience.

The provider carried out a range of audits to monitor the quality of the service. We saw the reports from a number of audits that had been carried out in the 12 months before our visit. These included monthly audits of patient records and prescription of medication, monthly audits against the Essential Standards of Quality and Safety, six monthly infection control audits and an annual clinic audit. We saw that the findings from these audits were mostly positive. Where concerns were identified, there was an action plan included in the audit report setting out the work that needed to be done to address the issues. We saw evidence during our visit that issues identified by previous audits had been resolved.

There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. Staff were aware of the provider’s incident reporting policy. We reviewed the incident reports from January to April 2012 and we saw that a range of issues were reported as untoward incidents, including unexpected complications of treatment and patient or staff injuries on the premises. The incident reports clearly set out what had been done to investigate each incident and the action taken to prevent a similar incident from happening again. We saw evidence that the provider's medical advisory committee reviewed learning from untoward incidents at each committee meeting. The manager said that learning from incidents was also fed back to staff at the team meetings and daily huddles.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. We saw that each patient’s electronic record included a section for staff to record any complaints. The manager told us that the system then automatically generated a reminder email that was sent to her about once every two weeks to make sure she was aware of any unresolved complaints. We saw an example complaints record which showed that the complaint was fully investigated and action was taken in response to the issues raised, which resolved the person’s concerns.