Laserase Bolton Limited

This service is rated as Good overall. (Previous inspection 6 February 2018 – Not rated)

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 27 July 2021 at Laserase Bolton as part of our inspection programme and to provide the service with a rating.

Laserase Bolton is a private clinically led service that helps those suffering from skin conditions and/or looking for aesthetic enhancement. CQC registered treatments include tattoo removal, treatment for thread veins, birth marks, moles and skin pigmentations. Their treatment rooms are maintained in line with good standards of infection, prevention and control. The provider works closely with the NHS to assure patient safety and they provide secure and confidential handing of patient information. The service treats adults and children between the ages of five and 18. All children are treated by a doctor and all procedures are carried out by healthcare professionals.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 for the regulated activities of diagnostic and screening procedures and treatment of disease, disorder or injury, but this is not for all of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Laserase Bolton provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example Botox and fillers which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The founding director is the registered manager. However, they were not available on the day of the inspection and their role was being managed by another member of staff. 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.

As part of this inspection we undertook remote interviews with staff members, a site visit where we reviewed the premises and we spoke to members of staff who were in the building on the day of the inspection. We did not speak to patients or request CQC comment cards. However, we reviewed patient feedback by various other means, such as Google reviews and patient surveys.

Our key findings were:

• There were policies and procedures in place for safeguarding patients from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding at an appropriate level to their role and knew who to go to for further advice.
• Recruitment policies and procedures were in place. There were enough staff to meet the demand of the service and appropriate recruitment checks for all staff were in place. Staff felt supported and had access to all appropriate training for their jobs.
• The premises were clean and systems and practices were in place for the prevention and control of infection to ensure risks of infection were minimised. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available.
• Opening times of the service were displayed on the website and in the patient information guide.
• The doctor and director we spoke with were aware of and complied with the duty of candour.
• Patients’ needs were assessed, and treatment was discussed and planned with the patient and written consent obtained prior to treatment being given.
• Patients were given verbal information, an information fact sheet pre-procedure and a post-procedure information sheet.
• There was a system in place to manage complaints. There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality and identify risk. Patient satisfaction views were obtained.
• There was a clear vision to provide a safe and high quality service. Staff felt supported by management and worked well together as a team.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

• Non clinical staff did not undertake chaperone duties which meant patients who required a chaperone would only be seen when there were two clinicians on site. The service should consider training non-clinical staff to undertake this role which would improve the flexibility of appointments when required.
• There was no system in place to assure the service that adults accompanying children were appropriate guardians. A formal process should be implemented.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care