We spoke to people who had used the service who told us that the service was "good" and that staff had taken appropriate medical details from them. They spoke positively about the quality of treatment they had received and said they had been provided with advice on how to care for themselves afterwards. We reviewed the results of patient feedback received between August 2012 and January 2013. The majority of people said they would recommend the centre to friends or family and rated it as either "excellent" or "good". In their comments they described it as "friendly" and "efficient".

Where appropriate, following clinical assessment people would be referred to other healthcare providers within the locality for further investigation and treatment. These included community services as well as other hospitals with specialist and general units.

On the day of the inspection the service was clean and tidy in most respects. Personal protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons, was available throughout. There were appropriate facilities for the disposal of clinical waste, including sharp items.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

People using the service that we spoke with described staff as "really nice" and "very friendly". In recent patient feedback they said that they had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment which was fully explained to them. All staff had been trained in equality and diversity and were able to describe how they could accommodate particular cultural needs.

We spoke with people using the service who described it as "brilliant" and "good". Staff took people's medical histories before providing treatment and gave them information on aftercare and how to follow up their treatment. Staff had been trained in what to do in medical emergencies and emergency drugs and equipment were available.

People using the service told us that they felt "safe" when doing so and "comfortable" with staff. Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and child protection. There was a policy and procedure in place for what to do when staff had concerns, including contacting a local paediatric unit and social services.

All staff had an induction to the service and refreshed their mandatory training on a one, two or three year basis. They had annual appraisals where performance over the previous year was discussed and areas for development were identified.

The service conducted audits on an annual basis by which they monitored the quality of the service they provided. People using the service was asked to provide feedback.