Optimax Laser Eye Clinics Birmingham is operated by Optimax Clinics Limited. Facilities were available on one level. Facilities included a reception/waiting room, a topography room where the service also prepared patients for treatment, three consultation rooms that the service used as recovery rooms on treatment days, the doctors’ room where some treatments were also carried out and the treatment/operating room with the dirty utility room to the rear of this.

Patients were self-referring and self-funded and had visual problems caused by cataract or visual acuity deteriorating over time (failing eyesight). Visual acuity deterioration is not classed as a medical condition so is not treated by the NHS.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the inspection on 25 May 2018.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the service understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

During our visit we spoke with three people who were patients at the clinic, the manager and three members of staff. People were given all the information they needed to make an informed decision about their treatment, and were asked to sign to indicate their consent to such treatment. People were positive about the treatment they received at the clinic. One person told us, “I’ve had excellent treatment.”

People told us the clinic was clean, comfortable and welcoming. We found the building was appropriately designed and laid out to ensure accessibility, comfort and dignity. All areas were clean, well maintained, bright and welcoming. Records confirmed that regular safety checks, servicing and maintenance were carried out.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff commenced work at the clinic. This ensured people were cared for by suitably qualified and experienced staff.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision through surveys and audits. The complaints procedure was well publicised, although the information provided to people using the service was incomplete and misleading in respect of the role of CQC. People told us that they felt able to bring a concern or complaint to the direct attention of the clinic, should the situation arise.

During our visit we spoke with six people who were patients at the clinic, the manager and five members of staff.

We found that people were treated with dignity and respect and usually received care that met their needs. We found that patient consultations took place in private with enough time allocated for their appointment to ensure they had opportunity to have their treatment needs fully assessed. Five of the six people we spoke with were very satisfied with the service they had received. One person was unhappy that their treatment had not gone ahead as planned but they told us they were happy with the action taken by staff at the clinic to resolve this.

Records confirmed that the majority of staff had attended safeguarding of vulnerable adults training. This enabled staff to understand the aspects of safeguarding which were relevant to them.

We found that staff received an induction, training and appraisals. We also found that the provider took steps to assess the quality of the service being provided.