You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 June 2021

We have not rated the service before. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Services were available seven days a week.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • There was culture of progress embedded in the leadership team. Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Managers were constantly reviewing and making changes and improvements to the clinic. Staff understood the service’s vision and values and felt respected, supported and valued. There was a culture of patient focused practice among all staff. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • There was no appointed safeguarding lead.
  • The service did not collect quality patient reported outcome measures (QPROMS) for patients undergoing blepharoplasty (surgery to remove excess skin or fat from the eyelids).
  • The clinic had access to a telephone interpreting service. However, the service used staff and family members to interpret as needed so staff could not be sure correct information was given to the patient.
  • Pre-assessment documents did not prompt staff to evaluate patients’ psychological state.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 June 2021

Effective

Good

Updated 24 June 2021

Caring

Good

Updated 24 June 2021

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 June 2021

Well-led

Outstanding

Updated 24 June 2021

Checks on specific services

Surgery

Good

Updated 24 June 2021

We have not previously rated the service. We rated it as good.