You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Aesthetic Beauty Centre. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Updated 21 April 2020

Aesthetic Beauty Centre is operated by Aesthetic Beauty Centre LLP. The service provided a range of cosmetic procedures under local anaesthetic to fee paying patients over 18 years old.

The service is situated in a large three storey terraced house which has been converted into a number of consulting rooms and an operating room, that is wheelchair accessible to ground floor level (but without ramps) and is located conveniently for access to local public transport networks, but also pay and display close by. Service users arriving were met by staff and directed to a downstairs reception room and waiting area. Adjacent to this were a consulting room and office spaces. There were stairs to the first floor landing and also an electronic stair lift, to an unisex toilet and storage. There was a further stair case and electronic stair case to the consulting rooms and an office space. On the second floor there was a theatre, pre-theatre room, together with a room used by staff as the office.

We inspected this service as a responsive inspection following information, we received relating to concerns about services provided from this location during a follow up inspection at another Aesthetic Beauty Location. We carried out a short notice inspection on 13 February 2020. Following this inspection we issued a notice of decision under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act (2008) imposing conditions to suspend the carrying out of any surgical activity which required local anaesthetic at this location until 04 April 2020.

To get to the heart of experiences of care and treatment for patients, 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. The inspection was in response to information received and so does not cover all five key questions. We looked only at those parts of safe and well led that caused concern. We did not consider ratings at these inspections.

Services we rate

We had not previously rated this service which was registered on 31 March 2011. As this was a focussed responsive inspection these inspections looked at specific areas and did not cover the whole domains on key questions. Therefore, we inspected but did not rate the service.

We found the following issues, that the service provider needs to improve:

  • Care premises, equipment and facilities were unsafe for example there was no ventilation system in the treatment room in accordance to HTM guidance 03/01, therefore, there was a risk of post-operative infection.
  • Infection prevention and control procedures were not robust, for example the emergency trolley was corroded and dusty. The process for the disposal of clinical waste was inappropriate.
  • Medicines were not stored safely, securely or appropriately.
  • Hazardous substances were not stored in line regulations.
  • The was no antimicrobial stewardship, we saw patients’ general practitioners were not informed when a service user was given antibiotics.
  • Patient risk assessments were not always completed and updated in line with best practice.
  • All staff were not aware of their duty to identify and report female genital mutilation.
  • There were no risk assessments in place with regard to the environment and patient care.
  • We found evidence of inappropriate monitoring of patients. This meant patients were not always monitored appropriately during procedures, this meant the provider would not be able to and did not identify patient deterioration in a timely manner.
  • There was poor completion of the world health organisation (WHO) safety checklist. Much of the documentation we reviewed was illegible and not in line with professional standards.
  • There was no audit of pre assessment documentation, to identify improvements which could be made.
  • There was no registered manager for this location at the time of our inspection although the provider had made an application to the CQC.
  • The providers statement of purpose dated 1 January 2020 did not reflect the activities and procedures which were being undertaken during our inspection.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take 19 actions to comply with the regulations. We also issued the provider with three requirement notice(s) that affected Aesthetic Beauty Centre – Sunderland. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)

Inspection areas


Updated 21 April 2020


Updated 21 April 2020


Updated 21 April 2020


Updated 21 April 2020


Updated 21 April 2020

Checks on specific services


Updated 21 April 2020

Surgery was the main registered activity at this location