Prior to our visit we received information of concern regarding the way in which people were cared for in the recovery area following surgery. During our inspection we found that the systems and processes in place to care for people who used the service were safe and there were suitable arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

We spoke with four people during our inspection who all told us they were happy with the care and treatment they had received at Ultralase. Some comments made were:

“My options were explained to me.”

“It was lovely and clean and the staff were very professional.”

“I repeated back what I had consented to, so that they were sure I understood everything.”

People who used the service were given clear information about the treatment they would receive and how much it would cost. We also found that the organisation monitored the quality of the service provided on a regular basis.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

Ultralase Eye Clinics Limited Liverpool is operated by Ultralase Eye Clinics Limited. The service is for day cases only. Facilities include a theatre for the treatment of refractive eye conditions and rooms and equipment for assessment for suitability for surgery.

The service provides refractive eye treatment for adults and we inspected this service. There were 1341 treatments carried out in the period January 2016 to December 2016.The service did not treat children and young people.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 7 September 2017 along with an unannounced inspection on 8 September 2017.

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.

We regulate refractive eye surgery but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them when they are provided as a single specialty service. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The clinic had robust processes in place to manage patient risk and to provide safe treatment for patients.

• There had been no healthcare acquired infections at the clinic and theatres and clinics were visibly clean and tidy. There was an infection control policy andinfection control processes were audited.

• We saw that the pre-assessment of patients to determine suitability for treatment was robust and that there were detailed discussions about the risks, benefits and side effects of all treatments.

• There were robust consent processes in place for each type of treatment and patients had to sign at each stage of the process to show that they had read and understand each statement.

• The clinic worked to guidance from the National Institute of Clinical and Health Excellence and the Royal College of Opthalmologists.

• Staff were caring and there was positive patient feedback from surveys.

• Staff said it was a good place to work and that they were supported by their manager.

However:

• There was no information availalble in large print.

Ellen Armistead.

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (acute)