Archived: Northampton Laser Clinic

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 18 September 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 CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner, including the use of laser treatments for hair growth due to pre-existing medical conditions such as poly cystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). At Northampton Laser Clinic the aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the treatment of PCOS by hair removal but not the other aesthetic cosmetic services.

The owner of Northampton Laser Clinic is the registered manager. 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.

We received 51 comment cards on the day of the inspection and having reviewed these, all were positive about the provider.

Our key findings were:

• The provider had comprehensive systems to assess, identify and mitigate risks relating to the safety of the laser machines and their use. However, they could not always demonstrate that other risks such as those relating to the premises had been considered or actions taken to mitigate them. Following the inspection, the provider reassured us with evidence that these areas had now been addressed.
• The provider was complying with relevant legislation and adhering to guidelines in providing services to the public. The provider retained the services of an expert medical practitioner (EMP) to ensure that treatment and treatment plans were effective. The provider demonstrated that they contacted the EMP in any circumstances that were not contained in the treatment plans for specific conditions.
• The provider demonstrated that they had sought feedback from patients and had made efforts to continually improve.
• The provider was able to demonstrate that they had considered and taken action in response to the needs of their patients, including producing leaflets in other languages and considered actions for access for patients who find it difficult to access the premises due to disabilities. Patient feedback we viewed reflected high satisfaction levels.
• The governance arrangements the provider had put in place, were comprehensive, clear and well-structured to support them to provide good quality care.

There were areas where the provider could make improvements and should:

• Review all areas of risk relating to the premises and consider ways to mitigate these.
• Review and strengthen the systems for maintaining oversight records and staff competency to support learning and opportunities for improvement.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice