Archived: Ultralase (Nottingham)

We spoke with people using the service regarding how they had given consent to treatment. They told us that following the initial consultation, they were given a consent form and asked to sign it before returning to the clinic for surgery.

The clinic currently offered a 'lifetime guarantee' following treatment and we were able to speak with one person who was seeing the benefits of this. They told us that they had needed to return to the clinic a few times over a period of two years due to changes in their eyes. They said, 'They are working with me to correct this and there is no charge for the visits or treatment.' One person using the service told us, 'The after care has been very good.' Another person using the service told us, 'I have been given a helpline telephone number to call in case I am worried about anything following the surgery.'

We spoke to one person who had received treatment and they told us that they felt the staff had respected their privacy and dignity throughout the process.

We found that the clinic had appropriate links with other healthcare providers should patients require transferring between services, or treatment from their GP. We spoke with people using the service and they told us that they felt they had choices and that they felt in control of their treatment.

We found that people were protected from healthcare acquired infections through good hygiene standards. We spoke with people using the service and they told us that the clinic was clean and free from dirt and odours. The storage areas for equipment were clean and well organised to help maintain cleanliness of those areas, and of the equipment contained therein.

There were clear records of all medications given to patients during their treatment on a medication record sheet in patient files.

The environment within the clinic was well maintained and comfortable for people using the service. We observed a person using the service during their initial consultation and tests. The equipment used was in good working order and there was evidence of regular servicing and maintenance taking place. The equipment appeared to be new and modern and fit for the purpose it was intended.

We found that recruitment protocols protected people from unsuitable workers but were not always adhered to in practice, which meant that second references were not always being obtained. Staff were well supervised and trained following their appointment which provided additional safeguards for people. We received many positive comments about staff such as, 'they have been a joy', 'the staff have been brilliant' and 'I saw one person who came out of treatment and was about to get a train back home. They looked anxious and staff recognised this right away and arranged for a taxi to take them home.'

People's views about the quality of care and treatment they received were actively sought and there were plenty of internal quality assurance measures in place.

We spoke with four people who were receiving treatment at the clinic and we asked them if they knew how to make a complaint outside of the clinic, such as the head office or to an external agency. They told us that they did not know how to make a complaint outside of the clinic but if they were not happy they knew who to speak to in the clinic. One person told us, 'I have not had to complain but if I did then I know the staff would act on my concerns right away.'

There were appropriate facilities for the storage of records.