Archived: The Pemberdeen Laser Cosmetic Surgery Clinic Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Our overall rating of effective at The Pemberdeen Laser Cosmetic Surgery Limited has remained Requires Improvement.

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. The service used an internet-based application to provide translation services. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work. We found that this culture of improvement based on audit and feedback had yet to be developed.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We reviewed both care records for the patients who were attending the hospital when we were on site. Both care records demonstrated a good assessment of the patient’s health and potential risks for surgery including, deep vein thrombosis risk assessments, pregnancy testing, consent to treatment and post operative care to be given. Records demonstrated that a pre assessment had been undertaken by nursing and medical staff prior to admission and that the patient had been given time to reflect on their decision about surgery. Staff developed or amended care plans in order to meet the individual patients’ needs.

People's care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff assessed and met patients' needs for food and drink including any preferences that they had. However, there was no evidence that staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. There was limited evidence that an induction was provided or that there was effective clinical supervision of staff including an opportunity to reflect on and learn from practice, for personal support and professional development. Apart from the huddles prior to an operating list commencing there was a lack of team meetings. There was evidence of a Quality, Governance, Patient Safety & Risk Management Meeting held on the 10th of July which discussed quality performance measure. However, we were not given the supporting evidence nor was the only nursing representative present. There were only two members of the regular clinical staff present at this meeting.

There was very limited evidence that the service followed legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards as there were limited policies in place for staff to follow in the ward area. The resuscitation trolley in the theatre department had been checked on the day we inspected but the previous check record was 7 April 2025 when we know that surgery occurred on 22 July 2025 as indicated by the photograph of the implant register sent by the provider.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. A preoperative huddle ensured that everyone was aware of the surgical and discharge plan for each patient and any issues were resolved. However, this was not documented and there were no regular multidisciplinary meetings to share lessons learnt from audit or incidents.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always routinely monitor people's care and treatment to continuously improve it. There was evidence presented that the service had held one Quality, Governance, Patient Safety & Risk Management meeting, Whilst the agenda listed relevant topic for discussion the service did not provide the information used at this meeting as evidence that they monitored the service. Staff verbalized that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. This included no infections and no transfers out of the service. However, we saw no evidence to back up these assertions.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Patients were given time to consider and reflect on their decision and discussion with the surgeon prior to signing a consent for operation. Where a patients expectations for treatment could not be delivered the rationale behind this was discussed with the patient and surgery only occurred once a plan of care was mutually agreed. Patients were screened for issues such as body dysmorphia syndrome using recognised guidance.