The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Optyco Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

23 Churchgate, Leicester, LE1 4AL 07185 500785

Provided and run by:
Optyco Limited

All Inspections

17 April 2023

During a routine inspection

We have not previously rated this service. We rated it as good because:

  • 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. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment and 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, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available 7 days a week.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their treatment.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. 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 well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • While the clinical environment was well maintained and met national standards, other areas used by patients required improvement.

31 July 2018

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Optyco Limited is a high street optician providing refractive eye surgery. The service is delivered from premises in the centre of Leicester. The ground floor houses the opticians service and the first floor the refractive eye surgery services. We did not look at the optician’s service as part of this inspection, as it does not fall within the scope of registration.

Refractive eye surgery facilities include one operating theatre and several consulting/treatment rooms. Optyco only routinely treats adults over the age of 21, however in exceptional circumstances would treat patients 18 years and over.

This inspection was a focussed inspection following our initial inspection on 11 and 13 June 2018 when we suspended services for three months. The inspection took place on 31 July 2018 and focussed on safety.

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.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Staff had individual employment files and had attended the provider’s mandatory training.
  • All areas were visibly clean with cleaning schedules and colour coded cleaning equipment was used.
  • Medicines were managed in line with the provider’s policy and current best practice guidance and legal requirements. Emergency drugs including oxygen, were easily accessible.
  • All sterile and non-sterile surgical equipment was stored correctly and was within expiry its date. There was a service level agreement with an external provider for the supply of sterile, single use surgical equipment.
  • Products subject to Control of Substances Hazardous to Health legislation were stored correctly. Clinical and hazardous waste were disposed of safely. Electrical appliance testing had been carried out and there were maintenance schedules for specialist ophthalmic surgical equipment, we were unable to establish if these were followed as they have been newly implemented just prior to our re-inspection. The registered manager had oversight of this process.
  • Information was shared with other medical staff such as GPs where patients gave their consent.
  • Patient records and patient identifiable information was stored securely.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • Some documentation needed reviewing for clarity and completeness such as cleaning schedules, fridge temperature monitoring logs and hot water tap flushing.
  • The drug fridge had a small amount of water in the bottom which could affect the integrity of the medicines packaging.
  • The examination seat still needed recovering in order that it could be cleaned effectively according to infection prevention and control guidelines.
  • There was broken glass in the vicinity of the fire exit which could present a hazard for staff and patients in the event of the fire escape being used.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

11 June 2018 to 13 June 2018

During a routine inspection

Optyco Limited is a high street optician providing refractive eye surgery. The service is delivered from premises in the centre of Leicester. The ground floor houses the opticians service and the first floor the refractive eye surgery services. We did not look at the optician’s service as part of this inspection, as it does not fall within the scope of registration.

Refractive eye surgery facilities include one operating theatre and several consulting/treatment rooms. Optyco only routinely treats adults over the age of 21, however in exceptional circumstances would treat patients 18 years and over.

This inspection was a focussed inspection following our initial inspection on 11 and 13 June 2018 when we suspended services for three months. The inspection took place on 31 July 2018 and focussed on safety.

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.

Services we do not rate

We regulate refractive eye surgery services 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:

  • Staff had individual employment files and had attended the provider’s mandatory training.
  • All areas were visibly clean with cleaning schedules and colour coded cleaning equipment was used.
  • Medicines were managed in line with the provider’s policy and current best practice guidance and legal requirements. Emergency drugs including oxygen, were easily accessible.
  • All sterile and non-sterile surgical equipment was stored correctly and was within expiry its date. There was a service level agreement with an external provider for the supply of sterile, single use surgical equipment.
  • Products subject to Control of Substances Hazardous to Health legislation were stored correctly. Clinical and hazardous waste were disposed of safely. Electrical appliance testing had been carried out and there were maintenance schedules for specialist ophthalmic surgical equipment, we were unable to establish if these were followed as they have been newly implemented just prior to our re-inspection. The registered manager had oversight of this process.
  • Information was shared with other medical staff such as GPs where patients gave their consent.
  • Patient records and patient identifiable information was stored securely.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • Some documentation needed reviewing for clarity and completeness such as cleaning schedules, fridge temperature monitoring logs and hot water tap flushing.
  • The drug fridge had a small amount of water in the bottom which could affect the integrity of the medicines packaging.
  • The examination seat still needed recovering in order that it could be cleaned effectively according to infection prevention and control guidelines.
  • There was broken glass in the vicinity of the fire exit which could present a hazard for staff and patients in the event of the fire escape being used.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

29 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who had received laser eye surgery at the clinic. People told us they were very happy with the outcome of their treatment and were positive about the service they had received.

We visited the clinic, spoke with the provider and looked at a number of records in relation to the operation of the service. We found that the service was operated in a clean and pleasant environment. There were private rooms for consultation, screening, treatment and recovery as well as a patient waiting area.

We found that treatment had been planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's welfare and safety and protected them from harm. People had been given verbal and written information about the procedures involved so they could make an informed choice.

Treatment was carried out by appropriately qualified professionals and there were effective recruitment procedures in place.

There was an appropriate and effective quality assurance system in place that ensured people's views about the service were being taken into account and that risks to people's health and safety were managed.