The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Sk:n - London Procter Street

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 3a, 25 Procter Street, London, WC1V 6DW (020) 3889 1756

Provided and run by:
Lasercare Clinics (Harrogate) Limited

All Inspections

31 March 2023

During a routine inspection

This service is rated as Good overall. (No previous inspection)

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Sk:n London Procter Street on 31 March 2023 under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The 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 was the first rated inspection of the service under our current methodology.

Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has continued to regulate and respond to risk. However, taking into account the circumstances arising as a result of the pandemic, and in order to reduce risk, we have conducted our inspections differently. This inspection was carried out in a way which enabled us to spend a minimum amount of time on-site. This was with consent from the provider and in line with all data protection and information governance requirements.

This included:

  • Speaking with staff in person and on the telephone.
  • Requesting documentary evidence from the provider.
  • A site visit.

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 regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

The provider specialises in dermatology treatments and is led by independent doctors. The service offers a mix of regulated skin treatments and minor surgical procedures, as well as other non-regulated aesthetic treatments.

Sk:n London Procter Street provides a wide range of non-surgical aesthetic interventions, for example, laser hair removal and dermal fillers which are not within the CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

Sk:n London Procter Street is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide the following regulated activities: Treatment of Disease, Disorder and Injury; Diagnostic and screening procedures; and Surgical Procedures.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the

requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

  • Leaders and staff had the skills and experience to fulfil their roles in a safe and effective way.
  • The provider had comprehensive governance processes to provide assurance to leaders that systems were safe and operating as intended.
  • Risk management was deeply embedded in the culture of the service, we saw evidence the provider made improvements when risks were identified.
  • There were safeguarding systems and processes to keep people safe.
  • There were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medical emergencies.
  • Recruitment checks had been carried out in accordance with regulations.
  • There were health and safety risk assessments and processes in place.
  • The service proactively sought feedback from patients and used this information to monitor and improve the service.
  • The provider had an effective complaints procedure with an up to date complaints policy which was accessible by all staff.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

8 July 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited the provider on 08 July 2014 and looked at records relating to the service. We spoke with the clinic manager, who had transferred from another branch of the service three months ago, the lead nurse and two of the therapists. We also spoke with two patients using the service, who were attending treatment appointments at the clinic.

We saw that the clinic was clean and tidy and there were policies and procedures in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. One patient we spoke with commented 'in terms of cleanliness it seems fine.' Another commented 'it's dauntingly clean.'

Staff told us that the provider's induction process was thorough, that they were given appropriate further training under supervision, and they felt supported by management.

The provider had an effective complaints procedure, but the process or leaflets explaining how to make a complaint were not on display at the clinic at the time of our inspection.

2 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected the clinic on 2 September 2013. We looked at the treatment records of a number of people and other records relating to the service. We spoke with the clinic manager, who had been in post only a few weeks, lead nurse and one of the therapists. We also spoke with two people using the service, who were attending treatment appointments.

The people we spoke with were very satisfied with the service provided. One said, 'Yes, it's very good. I have no complaints.' They told us that convenient appointments were easy to obtain and that the staff were 'friendly and professional.' They told us that they had been provided with sufficient information regarding their treatment and had been able to make informed decisions regarding it. They confirmed that their health and medical histories were checked at the initial consultation and their consent was sought at each stage throughout the course of the treatment.

We saw that the clinic was in a good state of repair and appropriately clean. People who had attended on previous occasions told us they had found the clinic clean at their past visits.

Staff told us that the provider's induction process was good, that they were given appropriate further training, and that they felt supported by management.

The provider had a suitable complaints procedure, but the opportunity for people to provide general feedback was limited.

6 January 2012

During a routine inspection

People who use the service told us in the quality information they returned to the service that they were treated with dignity, respect and were involved in choosing the type of treatment they needed and when they required it. This was supported by an information pack that was explained to them during consultation.

They said they received quality treatment and support from friendly and competent staff and they felt safe receiving services provided. They told us that they had been contacted by the clinic to identify that they were satisfied with the service and staff delivering it.