Staianoplasticsurgery

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that patients and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating remained good. This meant patient’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Patients who used services self-referred and therefore were involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. This included the right consultant and time to have their surgery. Consultations were centred around the patients and their needs.

Patients were supported to understand the risks and benefits of their chosen surgery. Consultants ensured patients were aware of all available treatment options, including associated risks, benefits and professional advice. The service website provided comprehensive information to support informed decision‑making. Patients also received a tailored sequence of emails following their initial enquiry, which included written information and videos about the clinic, procedures, post‑operative care, scarring and implant selection.

Aftercare was planned on an individual basis according to patients’ needs, with no limit on follow‑up appointments. Patients were contacted by a nurse immediately post‑operatively and were reviewed regularly by the consultant.

The registered manager had undertaken autism‑specific training. Other staff were able to demonstrate awareness of the need to make reasonable adjustments and describe how they adapted communication and care to meet individual needs.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of their patients, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Consultants gave the patient options around the surgery and different choices they had including different size breast implants or type of surgery required.

There was continuity of care, supported by flexible service delivery. With patient consent, staff shared information with other services, including operating hospitals and GPs, to support coordinated care. Care and treatment were delivered in a responsive way that met individual needs, and patients were able to book consultations and surgery at times that suited them, helping them feel in control of their care.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients could get information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs. The service ensured staff and patients could get access to interpreters or signers when needed.

The website provided an introduction video to the clinic, surgeon and information about what the clinic provided. Information for patients, family members and carers was easily accessed on the provider website and printed information packs were available at the clinic.

Patients were given a buddy who was someone who had the same surgery as them. The consultant also held a weekly ‘live’ stream on social media channels to answer any patient questions they had.

The lead consultant was passionate about ensuring patients made the right decisions for them. They had written a book about ‘how to choose the best plastic surgeon for your cosmetic breast surgery’. The service gave the book to patients who were undergoing a general anaesthetic.

The service offered a “cast iron guarantee”. This was a fixed price package with no extra costs or hidden fees. This included treatment for any complications or revisions that may be needed in the first 12 months post procedure.

The service made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support including how to raise any concerns or issues and can do so in a range of ways such as emailing, online reviews and telephone calls.

Information on how to make a complaint was available at the service in the waiting area and on the website. The complaint policy outlined the stages of the formal complaint process and ensured patients had access to an independent complaints review process.

The service viewed learning from complaints and concerns as an opportunity for improvement. Staff told us there had been no formal complaints in the past 12 months, which they attributed to addressing concerns promptly. Verbal concerns were managed proactively and were usually resolved at an early stage, preventing escalation. For example, following patient feedback that early arrival times at the hospital had negatively affected their experience, the service amended its information to advise later arrival times and ensured the hospital contacted patients in advance to confirm this.

The service made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them. Patients were not referred from other healthcare providers. They were self-funding and could access a consultant surgeon easily. The waiting lists were managed incoordination with the hospital where the procedure was to be performed. The surgeons operated on certain days of the month and would book the place in the hospital accordingly.

The service was accessible to patients through a range of communication methods. Patients were provided with a 24‑hour, 7‑day‑a‑week contact number, the website included a live chat function, and the consultant held a weekly question‑and‑answer session. These arrangements supported timely access to advice and reassurance when needed.

The service offered a range of appointment formats, including face‑to‑face, video and telephone consultations, which supported accessibility and flexibility to meet patients’ individual needs. All consent was completed in person in a face-to-face consultation. However, the service offered a ‘satisfaction guarantee’; if they were unable to help or a patient was not suitable for surgery the consultation fee was refunded.

In some circumstances the service provided transport or a driver to support patients travelling to the hospital for surgery.

The service ensured staff and patients could get access to interpreters or signers when needed.

Patients could expect timely care, treatment and support in line with best practice and quality standards; however, the service was not accessible to all patients. The clinic was unable to undertake minor procedures for patients who could not access the first floor, as the treatment room was only accessible by stairs. Patients requiring this were referred to a local private hospital with an accompanying referral letter if required. All patients were informed at initial contact that a flight of stairs was required to access the minor operations room. A ramp was available to support access to the ground floor, where consultation rooms were located, but access to the treatment room required the use of stairs.

Staff and leaders actively considered information about patients who may experience inequalities in access, experience or outcomes and adapted care accordingly. They ensured procedures were only offered where there was a clear benefit to the patient and appropriately declined treatment where the desired outcome could not be safely or realistically achieved.

All staff had undertaken equality, diversity and human rights training and ensured all patients and staff were treated the same.

The service was transparent with patients about their outcomes and offered resolution where patients were not satisfied with the outcome.

The service acted to identify and address inequalities in care experiences or outcomes. The staff gave culturally sensitive explanations to patients where needed. We observed a minor operation where a skin lesion was removed from a patient’s scalp. The patient was of Afro-Caribbean descent. The consultant explained to the patient that due to their ethnicity their scarring might be more pronounced, especially as it was on their head and gave advice about this to the patient.

Patients were supported to make informed decisions about their surgery. The service ensured they had enough time and information to make informed decisions about their care.

The service offered free revision surgery for up to one year after a patient’s procedure, recognising that it can take time for final results to settle and for patients to assess their outcome. Revision surgery, which involves a follow-up procedure to adjust or improve the results of the original operation, was available during this period.

Patients were supported throughout the aftercare process. All patients were offered an annual appointment with their surgeon and we were told they had patients from over 10 years who still wanted to be seen annually.