The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

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

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Church Gate Mews, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 1TZ (01509) 266882

Provided and run by:
Laser and Light Ltd

All Inspections

22 July 2022

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall.

Laser and Light Ltd was previously inspected during April and May 2021. At the inspection in 2021, the key questions of safe, effective and well-led were rated as inadequate, whilst the caring and responsive key questions were rated as good. Therefore, it received an overall rating of inadequate and the service was placed into special measures.

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Laser and Light Ltd on 22 July 2022 to ensure improvements had been made after the previous inspection, and to review the special measures status of this service.

The key questions following the inspection in July 2022 are now rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires improvement

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

This service is registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC) under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of a limited number of services it provides. Laser and Light Ltd provides treatment of acne to patients, as well as mole and skin tag removal (for cosmetic purposes), and injectable botulinum toxin for the treatment of migraines and hyperhidrosis. These are part of regulated activities and were therefore included within our inspection.

The majority of services delivered by Laser and Light Ltd such as laser therapies and other non-surgical cosmetic procedures (for example, dermal fillers) are not within the CQC’s scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services. 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.

Our key findings were:

  • The service did not always provide care in a way that kept patients safe and protected them from avoidable harm.
  • Service-users received effective care and treatment that met their needs.
  • Staff dealt with service-users with kindness and respect and involved them in decisions about their care.
  • The service was responsive to the needs of service-users.
  • The way the service was led and managed promoted the delivery of high-quality, person-centre care.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Ensure care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

In addition, the provider should:

  • Develop its audit programme to incorporate minor surgery procedures undertaken.
  • Improve its mechanisms for service-user feedback to reflect key aspects of the care provided as part of regulated activities, and the outcomes achieved for the service-user.

I am taking this service out of special measures. This recognises the significant improvements that have been made to the quality of care provided by this service.

Sean O Kelly
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care

20 April 2021, 26 April 2021, 27 April 2021, 12 May 2021

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Inadequate overall. Laser and Light Ltd was last inspected in January 2015, but it was not rated as this was not a requirement for independent health providers at that time. Since April 2019, all independent health providers are now rated, and this inspection was undertaken to provide a rating for this service.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Inadequate

Are services effective? – Inadequate

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Inadequate

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Laser and Light Ltd on 20 April 2021 as part of our inspection programme.

Laser and Light Ltd provides treatment of acne to patients as well as mole and skin tag removal and injectable botulinum toxin for the treatment of migraines and hyperhidrosis.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not 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.

Laser and Light Ltd provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example dermal fillers and laser therapies which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

Our key findings were:

  • Care records did not always contain full information on what medicines and treatment had been provided.
  • Policies and procedures were not always up to date and relevant to the service.
  • Not all staff had the appropriate level of training for safeguarding.
  • Consent was not always recorded for each procedure.
  • Patient feedback was positive about clinical care and treatment experience.
  • The service was supportive of patients’ needs and patients were able to access the service.
  • Leaders were not always aware of issues within the service such as ineffective policies and lack of access to safety alerts and updates.
  • Out of date equipment was found within the service. There was no clear system for monitoring stock expiry dates.
  • There was no evidence of improvement within the service as there had been no clinical audits, significant events or complaints.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Establish effective systems and processes to ensure good governance in accordance with the fundamental standards of care.

I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

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

13, 21 November 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During the inspections we did not see anyone using the service

We completed our inspection by reviewing documents supplied by the provider and by talking with the provider and staff.

We completed this inspection to check what action the provider had taken following our previous inspections in February and October 2013.

We ask five key questions of services we inspect. Are they safe, are they effective, are

they responsive, are they caring, are they well-led? This inspection focused on two of those five questions; are they safe and are they effective?

Is the service safe?

We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because the staff were

trained and were aware of how to identify and report abuse.

When we inspected in February and October 2013, we asked the provider to take action to improve

their medicines management. Although they had taken some action, at this inspection, we

found systems for management of medicines did not protect staff, people using the service

and others from risks associated with medicines.

Is the service effective?

We found that staff felt well supported. Staff told us the registered provider was very approachable and supportive. The provider had an induction programme for staff who were new to the service and staff received training relevant to their role when they requested it. We noted there was no formal training plan for staff currently in place.

We found staff had not attended first aid training and the registered provider had not completed basic life support training since 2006.

3 October 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection, no-one was using the service. We spoke with one person over the telephone. They told us everything was always explained to them, so they did not have any outstanding questions or concerns. The person we spoke with said they were always treated with respect. They had complained about their treatment and were 'very satisfied' with the provider's response. We found the provider had effective systems for dealing with complaints.

We found that people were not protected from the risk of abuse because the staff were not trained and did not have access to information about how to identify and report abuse.

When we inspected in February 2013, we asked the provider to take action to improve their medicines management. Although they had taken some action, at this inspection, we found systems for management of medicines did not protect staff, people using the service and others from risks associated with medicines.

We found staff felt well supported but the provider did not have effective systems to ensure staff had access to adequate relevant training and support.

19 February 2013

During a routine inspection

There was only one person using the service on the day of our inspection. They were very satisfied with the service and commented the service was: 'Really professional. Make you feel at ease.' By checking records and talking to staff, we found that people were treated safely. The person using the service told us they had been given enough information about the risks and benefits of treatment before giving their consent. They were aware they could withdraw their consent at any time and their questions had been answered so they felt confident giving their consent. They felt confident that staff treating them were qualified and experienced to do their job.

The person using the service was aware that records about their care were kept. They had seen these were kept securely. We found the provider had arrangements for retaining records for an appropriate time.

The person using the service had not been given any medicines by the provider. We checked arrangements for management of medicines. We found the provider was not meeting standards for medicines management because they had not assessed the risks associated with obtaining and storing medicines.