Youthify Aesthetics

This service is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Good

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Youthify Aesthetics as part of our inspection programme.

The service was run by an experienced aesthetic practitioner who was also a registered nurse. There was a range of facial aesthetic treatments on offer throughout the areas of Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire. Treatments regulated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) included PDO thread lifts, slimming pens, ear irrigation vitamin B injections, hay fever injections and intravenous vitamin drips.

There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Youthify also provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions for example anti-wrinkle injections, vaginal tightening, dermal filler injections and non-invasive lip enhancements. These interventions are not within CQC scope of registration and therefore we did not inspect or report on these services.

The aesthetic practitioner and provider of services, Stacey McGreavy, is also the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During the inspection we looked at feedback from clients and saw that it was all positive. Feedback left on the provider’s website and internet pages were also positive.

Our key findings were:

• The service offered was on a private, fee paying basis only and was accessible to people who chose to use it.
• Information for people who used the service was offered by the provider and was comprehensive. Information was available in paper form and also via social media or directly to people’s smart phones.
• The service website gave details of the services offered and the cost of each treatment.
• The provider was a registered nurse and had the relevant skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care and treatments offered by the service.
• There were effective systems and processes in place to assess risks to people using the service including prevention of infection, health and safety and other risks associated with the specific treatments offered.
• The provider monitored feedback from people who used the service and we saw that people responded positively about the services they received.
• People using the services received information about post treatment support and telephone numbers to contact in the event of emergency.
• Clinical records contained the required information, relevant to each treatment and were held in accordance with General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Consent for treatment was recorded in the clinical records and this was audited by the provider.
• We saw that due diligence had been undertaken and people using the service were informed of all benefits and risks in relation to the medicine prescribed for weight management which was unlicensed for that particular purpose.

Dr Rosie Benneyworth BM BS BMedSci MRCGP
Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services and Integrated Care