Archived: Woodperry LLP t/a Surgical Aesthetics

Care was planned and delivered in a way to ensure peoples' safety and welfare. People were treated by staff that had been appropriately recruited and had undergone the necessary pre-employment checks. All people were assessed by a consultant and had a pre-operative assessment to determine whether the proposed procedure was appropriate or not. People received follow-up appointments to ensure their wounds were healing as expected. Medical records and records relating to the service were stored securely and were fit for purpose.

People were protected from the risk of unsafe equipment. The clinic used both disposable and reusable instruments. There were maintenance contracts in place to ensure that all machinery was working correctly. These were only operated by staff that had been trained to do so.

Care was planned in a way to ensure a person's safety. People were assessed by a consultant to determine whether the treatment requested would be suitable. People were provided with post-operative advice and had two follow up appointments following their surgery. There were procedures in place to deal with a medical emergency. One person stated they had the "utmost confidence in all staff, advice, care and post-operative advice".

The clinic appeared to be clean and well maintained. There were systems in place to reduce the risk of infection, including a policy on infection control, cleaning checklists and regular audits.

Staff received appropriate professional development and could attend relevant training courses and conferences, if requested. There was a complaints policy and procedure in place. People were given an information on how to make a complaint. We saw examples of complaints received and the action taken by the provider. People we spoke with and the comments from the 2012 feedback survey were complimentary about staff.