The premises were found to be welcoming and we observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service.

People who used the service told us that they could make decisions about themselves. We spoke to four people who used the service and they told us that staff asked for their consent before any treatment was given. The staff we spoke to told us that they always asked people if they wanted the treatment and explained the procedures involved.

Staff that we spoke with told us that the doctor assessed the requirement for medicines for each person who used the service and wrote an individual prescription for that person.

Staff told us there were good opportunities for training and that they had an annual appraisal and supervision. This meant that staff were given the opportunity to have feedback on their performance as well as to identify any training and development needs.

The manager told us they carried out satisfaction surveys on an annual basis and we saw positive written comments from people who used the service which included, "the service I received was always very good" and "the staff were helpful and I was satisfied with the treatment I received at the clinic."

People were made aware of the complaints system. One person who used the service told us "I know who to speak to if I needed to make a complaint" and another said, "I have had numerous visits and the service has been consistently good."

We were not able to speak to people using the service because there were no patients booked in for treatments on the day of the inspection. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by reviewing questionnaires and comments. People had described staff as “respectful” and “pleasant”. They were provided with information about the services on offer. Consultations took place in private rooms and translation services were available if needed. They said that staff were "very professional", "welcoming" and "very attentive". A medical history was taken for each person and there were procedures in place to deal with emergencies.

We looked at feedback questionnaires that had been completed in the last twelve months. Letters of thanks that had been sent to Patricia Wilson indicated people were happy with the service. Overall, people were happy with the care and treatment received.

There was a safeguarding policy in place for protecting vulnerable adults and staff were able to describe what action they would take. Staff received adequate training and supervision. Staff had annual appraisals where their performance would be discussed and targets set for the coming year.

The service conducted audits to monitor the quality of the service it was providing. Regular patient feedback surveys were completed.

We were unable to speak to people who use services on this occasion. However we observed patients being treated with respect by staff. Evidence from the clinic’s quality assurance audits where questionnaires were received from people that used the service between January 2011 to September 2011. Feedback from patients showed that people were happy with the consultation received and the support provided to them, they were fully involved in their decision for treatment and all areas of risk and choices available to them were discussed at the consultation.