We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 10 May 2018 to ask the service the following key questions; are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Brighton Laser Clinic is a private clinic providing minor surgery in dermatology. Procedures offered include the surgical removal of moles, skin tags, cysts and other non-cancerous skin growths. The service also provides the aesthetic cosmetic treatments for laser hair, thread vein and tattoo removal, anti-wrinkle injections and fillers, laser skin treatment and microdermabrasion.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of advice or treatment by, or under the supervision of, a medical practitioner. At Brighton Laser Clinic the aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore we were only able to inspect the treatment of minor surgery in dermatology but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

Dr Russell Emerson and Dr Fiona Emerson are the registered managers. 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received 29 comment cards from patients providing feedback about the service, all of which were very positive about the standard of care they received. The service was described as highly professional, friendly, helpful and organised.

Our key findings were:

• There was a system for reporting, recording, sharing and learning from safety.
• Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand.
• The treatment rooms were well organised and equipped, with good light and ventilation.
• The provider assessed patients according to appropriate guidance and standards.
• Staff maintained the necessary skills and competence to support the needs of patients. Staff were up to date with current guidelines.
• Risks to patients were well managed. For example, there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
• Medicines were stored safely.
• Systems were in place to deal with medical emergencies. Clinical staff were trained in basic life support and the provider had appropriate emergency equipment and medicines in place.
• Staff were kind, caring and put patients at their ease.
• Patients were provided with information about their health and with advice and guidance to support them to live healthier lives.
• The provider was aware of, and complied with, the requirements of the Duty of Candour.

People were complimentary about the care and treatment they had received. The provider gave people enough information in order for them to make decisions about their treatment. The provider followed a robust consent procedure with patients signing written consent forms before commencing treatment.

People told us that they were extremely happy with their treatment and the professionalism of staff. People had their individual needs assessed before commencing treatment and were given detailed information, including risks and side-effects. People felt that they maintained a close partnership with staff throughout their treatment.

Staff were trained to use equipment and carried out the necessary checks and procedures to promote patient safety. The provider was using equipment that was up to date and well maintained and followed the necessary protocols and guidelines in the safe use of equipment.

There was a robust recruitment and selection process in place with evidence of checks being undertaken for new employees. Staff had the appropriate qualifications, skills and knowledge for their roles. Staff completed a thorough induction process followed by ongoing professional development.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision through surveys and audits. The provider effectively dealt with incidents, risks and complaints. People felt confident to discuss their concerns with staff if these were not met.