You are here

Worthing Laser & Skin Clinic

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 14 September 2018

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 12 July 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.

Worthing Laser and Skin Clinic is a private clinic providing minor surgery in dermatology. Procedures offered include the surgical removal of moles, skin tags, cysts and other non-cancerous skin growths. The service also provides the aesthetic cosmetic treatments for laser hair, thread vein and tattoo removal, anti-wrinkle injections and fillers, laser skin treatment and microdermabrasion.

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. At Worthing Laser and Skin 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 minor surgery in dermatology but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

Dr Russell Emerson and Dr Fiona Emerson are the registered managers. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received 32 comment cards from patients providing feedback about the service provided by this service and three other services registered at the same location, all of which were very positive about the standard of care they received. The service was described as professional and efficient and staff were described as welcoming, friendly and caring. There were also comments about the cleanliness of the premises. There was one comment about the lack of car parking spaces while another comment commended the good access to parking on the premises.

Our key findings were:

  • There was a system for reporting, recording, sharing and learning from safety.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
  • The treatment rooms were well organised and equipped, with good light and ventilation.
  • The provider assessed patients according to appropriate guidance and standards.
  • Staff maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients. Staff were up to date with current guidelines.
  • Risks to patients were well managed. For example, there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
  • Medicines were stored safely.
  • Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies. Clinical staff were trained in basic life support and the provider had appropriate emergency equipment and medicines in place.
  • Staff were kind, caring and put patients at their ease.
  • Patients were provided with information about their health and with advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
  • The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

Inspection areas

Safe

Updated 14 September 2018

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

  • Systems, processes and risk assessments were in place to keep staff and patients safe. Staff had the information they needed to provide safe care and treatment and shared information as appropriate with other services.
  • There were systems in place to check patients’ identity.
  • The provider had a good track record of safety and had a learning culture, using safety incidents as an opportunity for learning and improvement.
  • There was an effective system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The staffing levels were appropriate for the provision of care provided.
  • We found the equipment and premises were well maintained with a planned programme of maintenance.
  • Emergency equipment and medicines were regularly checked.

Effective

Updated 14 September 2018

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

  • The majority of patients self-referred to the services. Assessment and treatment was monitored using a range of resources, including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance.
  • Patients were supported to make decisions about their treatment.
  • The provider reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care provided and staff were actively engaged in monitoring and improving quality and outcomes.
  • We found staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

Caring

Updated 14 September 2018

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

  • Staff were courteous and helpful to patients and treated them with dignity and respect.

  • The service respected and promoted patients’ privacy and dignity. Staff recognised the importance of patients’ dignity and respect and complied with the Data Protection Act 1998 and General Data Protection Regulation 2016.

Responsive

Updated 14 September 2018

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

  • The service conducted regular patient surveys and had improved the service as a result of feedback.
  • Appointments were available from Monday to Friday, some Wednesday evenings and monthly on Saturday mornings. The length of appointment was specific to the patient and their needs.
  • The facilities and premises were appropriate for the services delivered.
  • The service took complaints, incidents and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.

Well-led

Updated 14 September 2018

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

  • The provider was part of a corporate provider which had extensive governance and management systems.
  • There was a clear leadership structure in place and staff felt well supported by management.
  • The provider had a clear vision to provide a high quality responsive service that put caring and patient safety at its heart.
  • There was a focus on staff wellbeing.
  • The provider had systems in place to manage governance.
  • There were clear and effective processes for managing risks, issues and performance.
  • A programme of audits ensured the provider regularly monitored the quality of care and treatment provided and made improvements as a result.
  • Patient and staff feedback was invited regularly.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels within the service.
  • The provider was involved in public health promotion and had recently taken part in a local men’s health event by offering free mole checks to help improve awareness of the signs and symptoms of skin cancer.
  • The consultant dermatologist and nursing team regularly contributed to dermatology education days for GPs and nurses in the local area.