We found the following areas of good practice:

• High standards of cleanliness and hygiene were maintained throughout the environment.
• Patient records were comprehensive, had evidence of patient involvement and treatment plans were written from their perspective on how to meet their needs.
• Staff were encouraged to participate in research projects and to have them or articles they had been involved in published in professional peer journals. We were shown several of these.
• The staff had the right qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience to do their job and meet patients’ needs.
• Patients were routinely involved in planning and making decisions about their treatment. Patients told us they were actively involved in their treatment plans and staff listened to how their wound affected their daily lives.
• Patients had timely access to initial assessment, diagnosis, treatment and they could book into a clinic, which best suited their needs.
• There were effective governance systems in place to ensure quality and performance was managed.
• Feedback was actively sought from patients and staff and used to improve the service they offered.

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

• The provider’s safeguarding policy did not include information about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

• The provider’s complaints procedure made incorrect references to CQC’s involvement in complaints handling.

On the day of our inspection, there were no people currently using the service.

We saw from records of previous care provided that staff assessed the individual needs of each person and devised a treatment plan that was appropriate. It was evident that the views, preferences and consent of those people were included in their plan of treatment.

Medicines used only included wound care dressings. Any products used were agreed with the persons GP. This ensured that all the health professionals involved in each person’s care were kept up to date.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably skilled staff to meet the needs of people using the service.

There was a system in place to monitor the quality of service provided.

People who used the service were well-informed and involved in their care. We saw that staff assessed the individual needs of each person and devised a treatment plan that was safe and appropriate. We could see that people's dignity was maintained and their privacy protected. People who use 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.

Staff were enabled to take part in learning and development that was relevant and appropriate so that they could carry out their roles effectively. There was a system in place to monitor the quality of service provided.