• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Vinci Hair Centre Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

130 Harley Street, London, W1G 7JU (020) 7486 2331

Provided and run by:
Vinci Hair Centre Ltd

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 13 June 2022

Vinci Hair Centre Ltd is a private international clinic providing hair transplant treatments to adults only. Vinci Hair Centre Limited is located at 130 Harley Street, London, W1G 7JU.

The service opened in 2010. The service provides day case surgical hair transplant procedures to private patients over the age of 18. The method of hair transplant used by the service is follicular unit extraction (FUE), also known as follicular transfer. This is a method of obtaining hair follicles, naturally occurring groups of one to four hairs, for hair transplantation. All procedures were undertaken using local anaesthesia.

The registered manager had been in post since the clinic opened in 2010. The clinic is registered to provide the following regulated activities: Surgical Procedures.

The clinic carried out 545 day case hair transplant procedures in the previous 12 months.

The service employed one centre manager and one administrator. The centre employed three surgeons, two qualified nurses and eight hair technicians.

All patients were self-referrals and privately funded.

The clinic was open Monday to Friday from 8.30am to 4pm. Patients were seen by appointment only. Patients who have had a hair transplant procedure had access to the surgeon via email and a dedicated telephone number which they were given following their procedure.

We previously inspected the service in December 2015. We have not previously rated this service.

Overall inspection


Updated 13 June 2022

Our rating of this location was good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of people, took account of patients’ individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.


  • A defibrillator (AED) in the large theatre had not been serviced in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and there was not a system of recorded checks in place for the AED.
  • An emergency medicines kit had out of date medicines and there was no system to record checks on emergency medicines.
  • The service logged risks to the service on a risk log. However, dates risks were added to the risk log were not recorded. The service did not have a system of removing closed risks from the risk log.
  • The service did not have an identified safeguarding lead that all staff were aware of.
  • The service did not have a service level agreement in place with a provider of acute emergency services in the event of a deteriorating patient at the centre.
  • The service did not have a record of when disposable electrical equipment, that was not subject to electrical safety testing, should be replaced.