Dr Matla Aesthetics

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to Good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had made improvements to the way they learnt and improved following the last CQC assessment in April 2023. They had addressed areas of non-compliance and actions identified at that inspection. This included improving the arrangements for offering a safe chaperone service, improving arrangements for medical emergencies and managing health, safety and infection risks. There were arrangements in place to learn and improve, based on openness and honesty.

The provider had processes to identify and investigate incidents, near misses and safety events. There was a system to record and investigate complaints when things went wrong. Learning from incidents and concerns resulted in changes that improved care for others.
 

There were some systems for sharing information with other agencies to enable them to deliver safe care and treatment. They had assessed the procedures they delivered, and types of medicines prescribed, to ensure that patient care was not compromised if details were not shared with the patients’ own GP. As such they had decided to stop delivering the prescribing of weight loss medicines, such as GLP1 inhibitors. Therefore, they had removed the regulated activity of services in slimming clinics from their registration, since the last CQC inspection.

Where appropriate the service always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They supported people to receive continuity of care throughout the treatment pathway, including follow up checks (where appropriate) to check for any complications and to give any appropriate advice and support needed. There were systems in place for processing information relating to new patients.
 

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The service had systems to share concerns quickly and appropriately. Contact numbers for the local authority safeguarding team were easily accessible. Staff who acted as chaperones were trained for the role and had received a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. Since the last inspection in April 2023, they had employed someone to support the lead doctor during procedures, including acting as a chaperone where required.

The service always worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Although the service did not see acutely unwell patients, staff understood their responsibilities to manage emergencies and to recognise those in need of urgent medical attention. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe and supportive and in line with expectations.

Patients were advised on risks related to their procedures and actions to take if their condition deteriorated. When we inspected the service in April 2023, we found gaps in the arrangements for dealing with medical emergencies. At this inspection, we found this had been addressed. Oxygen and a defibrillator were now available on site and regular checks were undertaken to ensure these were ready and available to use during an emergency.
 

The service had made improvements since the April 2023 inspection to ensure they detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.

The service was small and consisted of one doctor and one support staff member. They also had external support to help them with the governance and improvements within the service. They managed scheduling of procedure appointments around the availability of staff.

We found training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence. Safe recruitment practices were followed.

In our April 2023 inspection we found although the premises were clean and well maintained, there were some areas of infection prevention and control (IPC) that were not in line with current guidance. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. There were now appropriate assurance processes embedded into practice.

The practice had a designated infection, prevention and control lead and all staff had received relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.
 

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. The service held limited supplies of medicines on site. The systems and arrangements for managing medicines, minimised risks. Private prescriptions were sent electronically via an electronic prescribing system and were digitally signed. The service did not prescribe any controlled drugs (medicines that have the highest level of control due to their risk of misuse and dependence). Staff prescribed, administered or supplied medicines to patients and gave advice on medicines in line with legal requirements and current national guidance. Processes were in place for checking medicines and staff kept accurate records of medicines. Where there was a different approach taken from national guidance there was a clear rationale for this that protected patient safety.

The provider had effective systems to manage and respond to relevant safety alerts and medicine recalls.