You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3, 14 January 2013
Date of Publication: 7 February 2013
Inspection Report published 7 February 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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 3 January 2013 and 14 January 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

Reasons for our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.

We reviewed the provider's paper records for 12 people who had used the service. These were supplemented by electronic records completed by the clinicians providing the treatment or series of treatments. We found that in addition to the consent forms, a client registration form had been completed for each new person using the service, either in hard copy or entered on to the electronic record. This was designed to gather people's background medical history, highlight any known allergies and identify any contra-indications to the treatment proposed. Within the files there was evidence that where appropriate the doctor had referred the care of the patient on to other healthcare professionals, for example to a consultant dermatologist. We also saw that histology reports on tissue samples submitted for analysis following skin procedures had been recorded and acted on in a timely manner.

We found that the provider did not have a written chaperone policy and people we spoke to told us that they were unaware that they could request a chaperone. The staff we spoke to however were clear that anyone using the service could request a chaperone, that it did happen and that the doctor often asked for this. The provider might like to consider whether it provides a notice advising people of this service.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The provider had a supply of emergency drugs available and oxygen. The staff confirmed that the doctor would use these in an emergency if required. However if a doctor was not on the premises then the staff would call immediately for an ambulance. In the event that the staff member needed to close the building in order to accompany a person to hospital, a further procedure was in place. This involved the staff member collecting a 'grab bag' containing helpful information for dealing with the situation before locking and leaving the premises.