Laserase Newcastle Ltd

This service is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Laserase Newcastle Ltd as part of our inspection programme. The service had not been inspected previously at this address.

Laserase Newcastle Ltd is a private clinically led service that helps those suffering from skin conditions and/or those who are looking for aesthetic enhancement.

The service treats adults and children between the ages of 13 and 18 years. All children are referred or initially treated by a doctor and all procedures are carried out by healthcare professionals.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Laserase Newcastle provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example botox, dermal fillers and laser hair removal which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The services offered that fall under registration include minor skin procedures such as medical treatment for acne, acne scarring, warts, verruca treatments and vascular lesions. The service receives NHS referrals from dermatologists for acne scarring.

The clinic director is the registered manager and an aesthetic medical practitioner. 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 in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

As part of this inspection we undertook remote interviews with staff members, a site visit where we reviewed the premises and we spoke to members of staff who were in the building on the day of the inspection. We obtained patient feedback about the service from 17 completed CQC comment cards and by various other means, such as internet search engine reviews and patient surveys.

Our key findings were:

• There were policies and procedures in place for safeguarding patients from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding at an appropriate level to their role and knew who to go to for further advice.
• Recruitment policies and procedures were in place. There were enough staff to meet the demand of the service and appropriate recruitment checks for all staff were in place.
• Staff felt supported and had access to appropriate training for their jobs.
• The premises was clean, and systems and practices were in place for the prevention and control of infection to ensure risks of infection were minimised. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available.
• Opening times of the service were displayed on the website.
• We saw evidence that staff were aware of and complied with the duty of candour.
• Patients’ needs were assessed, and treatment was discussed and planned with the patient and written consent obtained prior to treatment being given.
• Patients were given verbal information, an information fact sheet pre-procedure and a post-procedure information sheet.
• There was a system in place to manage complaints. There were systems in place to monitor and improve quality and identify risk. Patient satisfaction views were obtained.
• There was a clear vision to provide a safe and high-quality service. Staff felt very supported by management and worked well together as a team.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care