Archived: Baruch Hair Transplant Centre Limited

Updated 20 March 2020

The service is a private clinic providing hair transplants and hair solutions to the public situated in Leeds. Although it serves the population of Leeds, patients travel from across the country for treatment.

The service is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Surgical procedures

There has been a registered manager in place since the clinic opened in 2016.

We last inspected this service in June 2019 and found overall that the service was inadequate. We rated the service as inadequate for safe, effective and well-led, responsive as requires improvement and good for caring.

Updated 20 March 2020

Baruch Hair Transplant Limited is operated by Baruch Hair Transplant Limited. Facilities include a hair transplant treatment room, a recovery area and a consultation room. The service has no overnight beds.

The service provides surgical hair transplant procedures only. There are two methods of hair transplantation: follicular unit transplant and follicular unit extraction. The service only provided follicular unit extraction. In follicular unit extraction individual follicles are extracted and then implanted into small excisions in the patient’s scalp.

We found a number of areas of concern during our inspection on the 27 June 2019; however, the immediate risk to patients was low due to the number of procedures undertaken by the service. Immediately following the inspection, we requested evidence from the provider under section 64 and section 65 of the Care Standards Act for further assurance of the safety of patients using the service. We also requested the provider to inform us in advance of any planned regulated activity. The provider agreed to do this.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short-announced inspection on 27 June 2019.

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 provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

We had not rated this service before and at this inspection, we rated it as inadequate because:

• We were not assured all staff had undertaken mandatory training.

• We were not assured all staff had undertaken safeguarding training.

• We did not see evidence of audits in place.

• There was no policy or procedure for managing the deteriorating patient.

• There were limited processes in place to manage patient safety incidents if they occurred.

• There were no systems to ensure learning from incidents or patient safety alerts would be effectively shared with staff.

• There was no evidence the service used any national guidance for cosmetic surgery.

• The service did not follow guidance for consent.

• The service did not provide additional support for individuals with physical disabilities or mental health issues. Although we did not request the exclusion/inclusion criteria, this was not seen on inspection or referred to by the registered manager.

• The service held no staff meetings and there was no evidence of staff involvement in running the service.

• Leaders did not understand the challenges of maintaining and improving quality.

• There were no systems to improve service quality and safeguard high standards of care.

• There were no systems to identify risks and plans to eliminate or reduce risks.

However:

• Staffing levels were safe

• Staff were caring and patient’s privacy and dignity was respected

Following this inspection, we told the provider that regulations had been breached and the service needed to improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)

Updated 30 October 2019

Surgery was the only activity of the service.

We rated this service as inadequate because of concerns we identified about the service in the domains of safe, effective, responsive or well-led, however we found the service to be caring.