You are here

Laser and Light Ltd Also known as The Laser and Light Medical Skin Clinic

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 October 2013
Date of Publication: 30 October 2013
Inspection Report published 30 October 2013 PDF | 91.79 KB

Staff should be properly trained and supervised, and have the chance to develop and improve their skills (outcome 14)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by competent staff.

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 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and took advice from our pharmacist.

Our judgement

People were not cared for by staff who were supported in their roles.

Reasons for our judgement

Staff did not receive appropriate professional development. Staff told us they were well supported by the doctor who managed the service. They told us they attended training courses as they arose. They told us it was difficult to plan such training because it tended to be offered in response to new treatments or evidence becoming available. There was no record of how training needs of individual staff members or roles were assessed. There were no regular meetings for staff to discuss their training and development needs with a manager, although staff told us they had regular feedback on their performance through their informal daily contact with the provider and at team meetings.

One staff member had been recruited within the last three months. They said they had had a formal induction. Unfortunately, the provider told us they had taken the documentation home to prepare for a probation meeting with the staff member. Although staff felt well supported and had some access to training when it was offered by external providers, there were no formal arrangements for supporting staff in their roles and in their development. This meant staff were not properly supported in their roles.

Staff were able, from time to time, to obtain further relevant qualifications. Staff told us they were supported to pursue their interests including professional qualifications. They gave examples of two staff members who were supported to undertake professional qualifications. The provider supported staff, both financially and through encouragement to pursue further qualifications. Although there were few formal systems to support staff, if individual staff members raised training and development issues, the provider responded to these. Staff felt valued because the provider supported and encouraged them in their personal development.

The provider was a registered doctor. We saw training records that showed she maintained her clinical knowledge and skills in accordance with guidance from the professional regulator, the General Medical Council. The provider employed two other registered health care professionals. We saw training records for one of these professionals, showing they had received some relevant training in the previous year. There were no training certificates or records for the other professional since 2008. Because there were no formal systems for planning and recording training for staff including health professionals, the provider had no evidence to support that health professionals maintained their clinical and non-clinical skills.