Mapperley Park Clinic

Updated 20 December 2019

Mapperley Park Clinic is operated by Lasercare Clinics (Harrogate) Limited . The hospital/service opened in 2015. It is a private clinic in Nottingham, Nottinghamshire. The service primarily provides care and treatment to patients from the Nottinghamshire area, however patients could also travel from further afield to undergo treatment at this location.

The hospital has had a registered manager in post since 2015. At the time of the inspection, a new manager had recently been appointed and was in the process of being registered with the CQC.

The clinic also offers cosmetic procedures such as dermal fillers and laser hair removal. We did not inspect these services, as they are not in our remit to do so.

Updated 20 December 2019

Mapperley Park Clinic is operated by Lasercare Clinics (Harrogate) Limited. The service has no inpatient beds. All patients are treated on a day case basis. Facilities include two operating theatres and three consultation rooms.

The service provides cosmetic surgery and hair transplant services. We inspected surgery and hair transplant services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced visit to the service on 15 October 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this service was cosmetic surgery.

Services we rate

This was the first time we inspected this service since registration. We rated it as Good overall.

· The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from those internal to the service as well as external services.

· Staff provided care and treatment which compared to similar services, met patient’s individual nutrition and hydration needs, gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. The service was open seven days a week and met individual requirements when needed.

· Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, they respected their privacy and dignity, meeting their individual needs, with a patient centred culture. Staff helped them understand their conditions and become partners in their care. They provided emotional support to patients. Feedback was positive about the way they had been treated

· The services were mostly tailored to meet the individual needs of the patient and delivered in a way to ensure flexibility and choice. The service planned care to meet the needs of local people with a specific requirement for treatment. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment. Complaints were low and were responded to in a timely manner when they arose.

· Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s mission and aligned themselves to it. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged with patients and other professionals to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services.

However, we did identify areas where improvements could be made:

· The service were unaware of patient’s previous infection status.

· Documentation for admission / assessment was not complete and records were not consistently managed effectively.

· Equipment for testing blood sugars was not tested or calibrated so we could not be assured it was working correctly.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with a requirement notice that affected the safe domain. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Midlands Region)

Updated 20 December 2019

Surgery was the regulated activity of the service.

We rated this service as good because it was effective, caring, responsive to people’s needs and well-led, although it requires improvement for being safe.