Archived: Laserlast Medical

Updated 6 December 2018

We carried out this inspection on 30 October 2018. The inspection team consisted of a lead CQC inspector and a GP Specialist Advisor.

As part of the preparation for the inspection, we reviewed information provided to us by the service. In addition; we reviewed the information we held on our records regarding this provider.

During the inspection we utilised a number of methods to support our judgement of the services provided. For example, we toured the building, interviewed the provider, looked at the clinical systems, reviewed documents relating to the service and CQC comment cards sent prior to our inspection.

Laserlast Medical provides skincare, cosmetic injection treatments and laser treatment for hair and tattoo removal. Private Doctor consultations for medicals for sports and driving purposes are also available.

The service operates from Dorin Court, Rothesay Road, Bournemouth, Dorset BH4 9NH. We visited this location during our inspection.

The premises are attached to a private house in the suburbs of Bournemouth. There are two treatment rooms and a waiting area with leaflets explaining the treatments on offer.

The service is led by a sole General Practitioner (GP). The GP working at the service also works as a GP in an NHS general practice.

The clinic operates from 9am to 6pm on a Monday and Wednesday.

To get to the heart of customers’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?

• Is it effective?

• Is it caring?

• Is it responsive to people’s needs?

• Is it well-led?

Updated 6 December 2018

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 30 October 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

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 service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The service is registered for the provision of treatment, advice or surgery by a medical practitioner. The aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the provision of advice and treatment and not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

We received 10 Care Quality Commission comment cards. These were positive regarding the environment, staff, efficiency of service, care delivered and the caring attitude of the provider. Many clients stated that the service was professional, and that staff took time to explain the process to them. They found the provider professional and would recommend the service to others.

Our key findings were:

• The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis and was accessible to people who chose to use it.
• Procedures were safely managed and there were effective levels of client support and aftercare advice.
• There were systems, processes and practices in place to safeguard clients from abuse.

• Information for service users was comprehensive and accessible. Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.

• The service encouraged and valued feedback from service users via in-house surveys and the website.

There were areas the provider could improve and should:

• Review systems in place to analyse and learn from incidents and complaints