• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Archived: The Light Touch Clinic

210 High Street, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3JB

Provided and run by:
Light Touch Clinic Ltd

All Inspections

21 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This was a follow up inspection to check that the provider had addressed previous concerns identified during the inspection that took place on the 23 July 2013. (This report should be read in conjunction with the published report for the previous inspection)

As the previous concerns related to the staff knowledge and understanding in respect to the safeguarding of vulnerable people and the recruitment practices, we did not speak with people using the service.

We found after speaking to a member of staff and reviewing records provided to us that actions had been taken to improve the two areas. Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults and children and had access to information to guide and support them with this regard.

Information was available to demonstrate that recruitment procedures had been improved and that only staff with suitable experience and backgrounds had been employed for the purpose of providing the regulated activities.

23 July 2013

During a routine inspection

People were complementary about the services they had received, telling us information provided enabled them to make decisions about treatment. People told us they signed a consent form prior to treatment and we saw evidence that consent was fully considered.

People told us they were happy with their treatment and the approach of staff. We were told, "Staff are friendly and professional." The doctor was said to be "Very enthusiastic and passionate" about their role and about achieving what was best for people. We saw that people were given detailed information about the treatment, including benefits and risks. Care records were completed for each treatment and people were kept informed of their progress.

Although people attending the service felt confident in the staff and safe, we found that the arrangements for safeguarding vulnerable people were not wholly suitably, as staff had limited understanding of this area and had not always had training to help them understand their responsibilities.

We found deficiencies in the recruitment procedures, checks were not undertaken to check staffs fitness and suitability for their roles. There were no recruitment records to indicate the local policy or regulatory requirements had been followed.

There were some arrangements in place for assessing and monitoring the quality of services provided. People felt able to discuss their expectations and if these were not being met and that these would be addressed by staff.