The KSL Clinic Ltd Manchester

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. The service controlled infection risk 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 collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, and gave patients 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, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. They followed the two-stage consent process.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• 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 and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Staff did not complete baseline observations for each patient prior to surgery and discharge.
• The premises were not fully accessible as they did not have wheelchair access to the first floor.
• Though the service had a vision, it did not have a clear strategy or objectives to achieve its vision, as this was still being developed.
• Leaders did not always operate effective governance processes. The service did not always have systems to monitor the effectiveness of care and treatment and audit this to improve outcomes for patients. Though they monitored the rate of surgical site infections through patient safety incidents, the system to monitor, and therefore improve, revision rates was new and not yet completed or embedded.