You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 1 April 2019

PHI Clinic is operated by PHI 102 Limited. The clinic opened in 2014. It is a private clinic in Harley Street, London.

The clinic provides consultation, examination and treatments in cosmetic medicine and treatment of skin diseases and disorders. The clinic provides low risk surgical cosmetic procedures for low risk patients. These included surgical removal of mole or warts, use of subcutaneous injection of botulinum toxin or fillers for skin rejuvenation. The clinic serves patients from the UK and internationally. All patients attending the clinic are privately funded patients. The clinic also offers laser hair removal, botox, and cosmetic interventions that do not involve cutting or inserting instruments or equipment into the body. We did not inspect these services.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 3 January 2019 and 10 January 2019. The inspection took place over two days. The inspection team consisted of one CQC inspector and a specialist advisor.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all clinics: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led. Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate clinics’ 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 (MCA).

The clinic has had a registered manager in post since 2 February 2017.

Services we rate

This was the first inspection of this clinic. We rated it as Good overall.

We found good practice in relation to surgical procedures and the treatment of disease, disorder or injury because:

  • There were effective systems to keep people protected from avoidable harm.

  • There were sufficient numbers of staff with the necessary skills, experience and qualifications to meet patients’ needs.

  • There was a programme of mandatory training which all staff completed, and systems for checking staff competencies.

  • Equipment was maintained and serviced appropriately and the environment was visibly clean.

  • Staff were trained and understood what to do if a safeguarding issue was identified.

  • Records were up to date and complete and kept protected from unauthorised access.

  • Incidents were reported, investigated and learning was implemented.

  • The clinic used evidence based processes and this followed recognised protocols.

  • Staff were competent in their field and kept up to date with their professional practice.

  • Staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach to their patients and supported their emotional needs.

  • Appointments were available to suit patients’ needs and there were no waiting lists for services.

  • Complaints from patients were taken seriously and acted upon.

  • The clinic had supportive and competent managers. Staff understood and were invested in the vision and values of the clinic. The culture was positive and staff demonstrated pride in the work and the service provided.

  • Risks were identified, assessed and mitigated. Performance was monitored and performance information was used to make improvements.

However, we also found the following issues the clinic provider needs to improve:

  • The resuscitation trolley and its contents were not checked in accordance with the PHI clinic policy.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the clinic improve. These can be found at the end of the report.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and the South)

Inspection areas



Updated 1 April 2019

We rated safe as good because:

  • Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and knew how to apply it.
  • There were sufficient numbers of staff with the necessary skills, experience and qualifications to meet patients’ needs. They were supported by a programme of mandatory training in key safety areas.
  • Equipment was serviced and there were processes to ensure all
  • items were well maintained.
  • The environment was visibly clean.

However, we also found the following issue that the clinic provider needs to improve:

  • The resuscitation trolley and its contents were not checked in accordance with the PHI clinic policy.



Updated 1 April 2019

We rated effective as good because:

  • Policies, procedures and guidelines were up to date and based on National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and royal college guidelines, relevant regulations and legislation.

  • Staff worked collaboratively as part of a multi-disciplinary team to meet patients’ needs.

  • There were systems to show whether staff were competent to undertake their jobs and to develop their skills or to manage


  • There was effective multidisciplinary team working throughout the centre and with other providers.

  • Staff had regular development meetings with their line manager, and were encouraged to develop their roles further.

  • Information provided by the centre demonstrated 100% of staff had been appraised.

  • Staff understood their responsibilities in regards to patients consent and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.



Updated 1 April 2019

We rated caring as good because:

  • Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness.
  • Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress.
  • Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.



Updated 1 April 2019

We rated responsive as good because:

  • Services were planned and delivered in a way that met the needs of the customer base.

  • Patients individual needs were met

  • Patients complaints and concerns were taken seriously resolve complaints and concerns and managed in accordance with the clinic’s policy

  • Complaints were investigated and learning was identified and shared to improve service quality.

  • Patients could access services easily; appointments were flexible and waiting times short.

  • Appointments and procedures occurred on time.



Updated 1 April 2019

We rated well-led as good because:

  • Managers in the clinic had the right skills and abilities to run a service.
  • The provider had a clear vision and values which were realistic and reflected through team and individual staff member objectives.
  • There was a clear governance structure, which all members of staff knew. There was evidence of information being cascaded from governance meetings to staff.
  • There were effective systems for identifying risks, planning to eliminate or reduce them, and coping with both the expected and unexpected.
  • The clinic was committed to improving services by promoting training, research and innovation.
Checks on specific services



Updated 1 April 2019

Cosmetic surgery was the main activity of the clinic

We rated this clinic as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.