You are here

Sk:n - Manchester Albert Square

Reports


Inspection carried out on 11 September 2013

During a routine inspection

The people who used the service said 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.

People we spoke with said they were very happy with the service they received. One person described their treatment as �life changing�. They said, �I would recommend the clinic to anyone, it was a very positive experience.� Another person said, �I had a very good service and I was happy with everything. I had an initial consultation where I could ask questions and talk about anything that was worrying me.�

A number of laser treatments were given at the clinic. Records were in place to indicate the lasers were regularly service and maintained in good working order.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control so they were aware of their responsibilities and knew how to work safely. An infection control audit took place every six months to ensure the clinic was kept clean.

Clients were given a copy of the clinic's complaint procedure during their consultation so they knew what to do if they were unhappy with their treatments. All of the people who used the service said they were aware of the clinic�s complaint procedure.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At our inspection in May 2012 we identified that one member of staff did not have any photographic evidence of identity and that regular performance appraisal of staff was not always taking place.

In September the provider submitted evidence that they now have photographic evidence of the identity of the member of staff concerned and that staff appraisals had been carried out.

Inspection carried out on 1 May 2012

During a routine inspection

No patients were at the clinic during our visit, therefore we were not able to speak to people using the service during this review.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)