You are here


Inspection carried out on 3 and 10 January 2019

During an inspection looking at part of the service

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)