• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Sk:n - Wolverhampton Compton Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Compton Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 9PH (01902) 290310

Provided and run by:
Lasercare Clinics (Harrogate) Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sk:n - Wolverhampton Compton Road on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Sk:n - Wolverhampton Compton Road, you can give feedback on this service.

15 February 2023

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection September 2013 – Good)

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

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sk:n – Wolverhampton Compton Road as part of our inspection programme.

Sk:n – Wolverhampton Compton Road offers specialised and tailored skin treatments. This includes laser hair and tattoo removal, skin peels and minor surgical skin procedures.

This service is registered with the Care Quality Commission (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. Sk:n Wolverhampton Compton Road provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example acne and acne scarring treatment, rejuvenating skin treatments which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The Centre Manager is the registered manager for this location. 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:

  • There were systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to patient safety.
  • Services provided were organised and delivered to meet patients identified and assessed needs.
  • The provider had systems and processes in place to minimise the risk of infection.
  • Staff files were not all organised so that relevant documents were readily and easily accessible in one place.
  • Some prescribed medicines did not demonstrate that national guidance was consistently followed before prescribing the medicine.
  • There were some gaps in the documentation of patients records to confirm that all patients had the required tests carried out before confirming the treatment to be provided. prescribing the medicine.
  • Appropriate medicines and equipment were available to manage medical emergencies.
  • Staff had received training and guidance to deal with medical and other health and safety emergencies.
  • The provider maintained a central register of any complaints and incidents that had occurred across all its locations. This supported sharing learning and improvements across the organisation.
  • We saw examples where information was shared with a patients NHS GP to support the continuity of safe care and treatment.
  • The clinicians and practitioners took the opportunity to provide skin health advice to patients at consultations.
  • Staff treated patients with respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • Governance arrangements supported the provider to have management oversight of systems to support ongoing learning, monitoring and improvement.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Continue with the improvements to implement formal quality audit systems for the ongoing and regular review of clinical records.
  • Include systems to check that clinicians are following relevant guidance when prescribing medicines to support patient safety.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

27 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with three people, three members of staff, the new manager, the outgoing manager (who was taking a period of leave from work) and the regional manager.

We found that people gave informed consent before they received treatment. One person told us, 'We spent time talking it through; there was no pressure'.

The care people received was reflected in their treatment plans. Treatment was delivered in a safe way.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected from potential cross infection. One person told us, 'I would say the place is immaculate; extremely clean'.

We found that staff were supported in their roles, although recent supervisions and appraisals had not taken place.

The provider used a number of audits in order to ensure people and staff who used the clinic were safe.

6 December 2012

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with three people, three members of staff, the manager and looked at six people's treatment records.

We found that people were supported in making informed decisions about the treatment they received. One person told us, 'They were good at taking me through everything'. People's values and diversity were respected.

The treatment people received was reflected in their treatment plans. People's medical status was regularly checked and updated by the clinic.

Equipment was used and maintained in a way which reduced the risk of harm to people. One person told us, 'I feel very confident and safe here'. Premises were safe and well maintained, but we found inadequate provision for the evacuation from the premises of people with mobility issues.

The service had a clear complaints procedure which was available to people. The progression of complaints was well documented and timely.

6 February 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

There were systems in place to promote people's dignity and respect. We saw that people received an initial assessment and were advised of the effects of the agreed treatment.

We overheard staff dealing with people in a friendly and polite manner. We were assured that the clinic wanted to hear about people's experience and therefore always asked for feedback.

We saw evidence that regular checks were undertaken by different people from within the organisation to make sure that they continued to meet the law.

We spoke with a person who had used the service and they told us that they thought it was "excellent".