We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Exeter Medical on 17 July 2018 to ask the service provider the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

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 service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of the provision of treatment, advice or surgery by a medical practitioner. The aesthetic cosmetic treatments that are also provided are exempt by law from CQC regulation. Therefore, we were only able to inspect the provision of minor surgery, advice and treatment but not the aesthetic cosmetic services.

We received nine Care Quality Commission comment cards. These were positive regarding the environment, staff, efficiency of service, care delivered and the caring attitude of the provider. Many stated that the service was professional, and that the staff took the time to explain the process to them. They found the provider professional and would recommend the service to others.

Our key findings were:

• The service was offered on a private, fee paying basis and was accessible to people who chose to use it. Some services were provided on behalf of NHS services. For example, vasectomy and carpal tunnel surgery.
• Procedures were safely managed and there were effective levels of patient support and aftercare advice.
• The service had systems in place to identify, investigate and learn from incidents relating to the safety of patients and staff members.
• There were systems, processes and practices in place to safeguard patients from abuse.
• Information for service users was comprehensive and accessible. Staff had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatment offered by the service.
• The service had processes in place to securely share relevant information with others such as the patient’s GP, NHS organisations and when required, safeguarding bodies and private healthcare facilities. The service encouraged and valued feedback from service users via in-house surveys and the website.

We saw areas of outstanding practice:

• The organisation engaged with the local community by providing an annual charity ‘mole check’ event at the service. The event included full mole checks for members of the local community in exchange for a minimum £10 cancer charity donation. The Saturday morning event this year had seen 130 patients being checked and £5000 being raised. Any abnormal results were processed using the urgent two week wait pathways.

There were areas where the provider should make improvements:

• Review systems for retention of recruitment records.
• Continue to embed the nationally recognised Health and Safety Executive environmental assessements