You are here

London Centre for Aesthetic Surgery

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Updated 22 August 2017

The London Centre for Aesthetic Surgery is operated by 'London Centre for Aesthetic Surgery’

and is a small independent clinic, which has been registered since April 2002. The clinic provides

cosmetic surgery services for private adult patients over the age of 18 years. Patients

are admitted for planned day case surgery procedures. The service does not provide overnight

accommodation for patients. Facilities include one treatment room, two recovery rooms and two

consultation rooms.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the inspection on 21 March 2017.

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?

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 do not rate

The clinic’s main service is cosmetic surgery. We regulate cosmetic surgery service, but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Staffing levels and skills mix were sufficient to meet patient needs and staff assessed and responded to patient risks.
  • Medicines were safely, administered, stored, and given to patients in a timely manner.
  • Patient records were detailed with clear plans of the patient’s pathway of care.
  • Patient consent was obtained prior to commencing treatment. Patients were provided with information to enable them to make an informed decision.
  • A cooling off period was observed for patients undergoing cosmetic surgery procedures. This was in line with cosmetic surgery guidelines.
  • We spoke to two patients. They were positive about the care and treatment they had received.
  • Staff treated patients with dignity and respect and patients were kept involved in their care.
  • Equipment we checked had been tested for electrical safety and serviced as required.
  • There were arrangements to ensure patients received adequate food and drink that met their needs and preferences.
  • There were processes to audit patient and clinical outcomes on a quarterly basis and these were discussed in the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) meetings.
  • There was appropriate management of quality and governance and mangers were aware of the risks and challenges they needed to address.
  • There was clear visible leadership within the services. Staff were positive about the culture within the service and the level of support they received.

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

  • The treatment room was cluttered and disorganised. There were no clearly defined separate clean and dirty zones within the treatment room. The Department of Health Building Note (HBN) 00-09: Infection control in the built environment states that clean and dirty areas should be kept separate and the workflow patterns of each area should be clearly defined. Maintaining separate clean treatment and contaminated zones, helps reduce the risk of infection.
  • The World Health Organisation (WHO) surgical safety checklist was not routinely used for all patients and there were no audit arrangements to test staff practice and adherence to the WHO checklist.
  • The provider had no processes to collect performance measures and supply these to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN). This is a requirement of the Private Healthcare Market Investigation Order (2014).
  • The safeguarding policy did not reflect national guidelines, for example, there was no reference made to female genital mutilation (FGM), slavery, sexual exploitation and PREVENT.
  • We were told there were routine checks to ensure anaesthetic equipment was working correctly, but these were not recorded.
  • The practice manager had not received the appropriate training for their role as the accountable officer for controlled drugs.
  • The controlled drugs register did not contain entries for supply, administered, and destroyed, which is recommended and regarded as good practice.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve.

Professor Edward Baker

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Inspection areas


Updated 22 August 2017


Updated 22 August 2017


Updated 22 August 2017


Updated 22 August 2017


Updated 22 August 2017