Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. We contacted patients following treatment by the surgeons to find out their opinion on how consent was sought and if they felt they were given sufficient information about the available options and time to make their decision. All the people we spoke with were very positive about the way they were given the time to consider the options before making decisions. One patient said, “I was able to go home and speak to my family. I was not rushed to make a decision.”

Patient’s treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual choice of treatment. There was a clear audit trail from the first consultation with the surgeon to the discharge of the patient. This included the patients’ GP being kept informed. This meant that the patients’ safety and welfare was protected by the practices of the surgeons.

Patients who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Patients were cared for by doctors who were competent to care and treat them safely.

There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. The provider used review of cases with poor or avoidable outcomes, referred to as Mortality and Morbidity (M&M) meetings and annual general meeting to review and revise the service so that they achieved the best outcome for patients.