We spoke with three people using the service and we sat with one person during their consultation. We saw how staff interacted with people using the service when they came to reception to ask for advice, make appointments or present for treatment. People were treated non-judgementally and staff made reasonable adjustments to meet people’s needs. The people we spoke with felt they had been given enough information so they understood their treatment choices. One person commented: “They tweaked it for me. It felt specific to me.” Another commented: “Nice and clean here. Very professional. I’m happy to go ahead with the treatment.” And “We worked it out between us. I felt as though I was in control.”

People told us staff were well trained and knowledgeable. One person commented about the staff person treating them: “She’s kept me very calm. Not only professional – she’s also very friendly – it helped me.”

We found the provider worked in co-operation with other providers to ensure people were treated safely. Laser equipment was safely maintained and used. There was enough laser equipment of the right type to meet the needs of people using the service.

The provider had failed to notify the Care Quality Commission of a change to management arrangements at this service. Managers agreed to take immediate action to address this.

We were unable to speak with people using the service during this inspection, because there were not many appointments at the time of our visit and we were unable to ask anyone if they were willing to speak with us. We saw that the improvements made in management of medication would protect people from the risks associated with incorrect storage of medicines.

We saw that confidential information about people was stored securely. This meant people could be confident their records would be accessed only by people who needed the information to provide care and treatment.

We spoke with five people using the service. One person told us, “I was very impressed. I asked her lots of questions and she was very patient. I didn’t feel pressurised – that was what I was worried about.”

Everyone we spoke with told us that they had had a consultation before agreeing to treatment. They had been advised of the benefits and limitations of treatment. Everyone we spoke with felt they had been given enough information to give valid consent. They had given written consent before receiving treatment.

None of the five people we spoke with had been given or prescribed medication by the service. They told us they had been asked about what medication they were taking.

The five people we spoke with felt that the therapists or nurses treating them were qualified or competent to do their job.

They told us that they had been advised that a written record of their treatment would be kept. They said they had been told what this would be used for.