Wessex Skin

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Our review of clinical records demonstrated that people were involved in planning their care and treatment and were supported to make informed decisions about the options available to them. Care and treatment options were tailored to people’s individual circumstances, preferences and goals. Staff discussed the available treatment options with people and supported them to make informed decisions about their care. People were given time to consider their options and decide whether to proceed with treatment, without pressure from staff.

The service recognised the importance of supporting people's emotional and psychological wellbeing when considering treatments. Staff were trained to identify signs that a person may have unrealistic expectations or concerns about their appearance and had access to a body dysmorphic disorder screening tool to support assessments. Where appropriate, staff would advise against treatment and explain their reasons, helping people make informed decisions that were in their best interests. Information about sources of additional support, including psychological services, was available if required.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service worked in partnership with other services to meet the needs of its population. For example, the service worked with a private pharmacy and healthcare provider that provided additional health services not offered by the service.

The service demonstrated a flexible approach to care and treatment and could adapt appointment arrangements to meet people’s individual needs where required and where capacity allowed. The service also promoted continuity of care by enabling people to see the same staff member throughout their treatment where possible. Where this was not feasible, or where people preferred to see a different staff member, alternative arrangements were discussed and agreed with them.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had access to interpreter services where required. Information for people was available in formats that met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. This included large print and easy-read versions, and staff were able to obtain information in braille where required to support people with additional communication needs.

Appointment confirmations, reminders and pre-appointment information were routinely sent electronically, and staff also contacted people by telephone where appropriate. This helped ensure people received the information they needed in a timely manner, supported attendance at appointments, and enabled people to prepare for their care and treatment.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Although the service did not have any formal complaints, the service described how they would manage these, and this was in line with their policy. Their policy outlined their acknowledgement and response timeframes. Leaders described how learning from complaints would be implemented and how this would be shared with the team. All staff had completed online training in the handling of complaints.

The service collected feedback from people through a variety of methods, including verbal comments and questionnaires. The service carried out annual satisfaction surveys to gather feedback about people’s experiences of care and treatment. The 2025/26 survey received 15 responses. Feedback was consistently positive, with all respondents reporting that staff were polite and considerate, listened to them, explained information clearly and gave them the opportunity to ask questions. People also reported confidence in the staff providing their care and, where applicable, felt involved in decisions about their treatment. The survey indicated that people felt their views were respected and that consultations helped them better understand and manage their care needs.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could book appointments in a way that suited their needs, including online, by telephone or in person. Consultations and treatments were delivered face-to-face at the service, with appointment booking arrangements designed to provide flexibility and improve access. People who used the service told us scheduling of appointments is easy, and efficient.

The service made reasonable adjustments to meet people’s individual needs and improve accessibility. For example, treatment rooms were available on the ground floor and could be accessed by people using wheelchairs or with reduced mobility, helping to ensure care and treatment remained accessible to those who required it.

The service had considered how people could quickly access the premises in an emergency. Following advice received through emergency response training, the service displayed its ‘What3Words’ location reference at reception, on emergency equipment and within its emergency evacuation procedures. (“What3Words” is an online tool which uses 3 individual words to identify a specific location anywhere in the world). Staff told us this was introduced because the service’s postcode did not direct people or emergency services to the main entrance of the premises, whereas the ‘What3Words’ reference identified the correct access point. This helped support timely access to the service in the event of an emergency.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff used appropriate systems to capture and review feedback from people using the service, including those who did not have access to the internet. Feedback provided by people using the service, both to the provider as well as to CQC, was positive.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. All staff completed training on bullying and harassment, which covered how to recognise, report and respond to concerns. The training also highlighted the support available to both staff and people using the service who may experience bullying, harassment or inappropriate behaviour.

Leaders proactively sought ways to address any barriers to improving people’s experience and worked with local organisations, including within the voluntary sector, to address any local health inequalities, such as working with a domestic abuse charity. Staff understood the importance of providing an inclusive approach to care and made adjustments to support equity in people’s experience and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

The service worked with people to ensure care and treatment remained appropriate when their health needs or circumstances changed. Staff considered the impact of existing health conditions and individual preferences when planning treatment and adapted care where necessary. For example, treatment could be postponed, modified or replaced with a more suitable alternative to reflect a person’s changing needs. Where treatment was no longer appropriate, people were supported to discuss other options, including alternative treatments or, where applicable, a refund. This helped ensure care remained safe, personalised and aligned with people’s wishes.