Pharma Aesthetics

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

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in decisions about their care and treatment and provided them advice and support.

This is the first inspection for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Inadequate.

This service scored 25 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Our review of clinical records showed that some records contained little or no clinical information regarding the care and treatment delivered to patients, whilst others had been saved in a draft format. We found physical health monitoring and baseline observations were not consistently recorded in clinical records in line with national guidance. Therefore, we could not be assured that patients clinical needs had been appropriately documented and reviewed.

Feedback from people using the service was only available on third-party websites, which were positive. The provider was not able to provide us with feedback received directly from patients from all of the services they provided.

The service did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, within the clinical records of two patients, there was no evidence of pulse or blood pressure measurements being obtained in line with national guidance. Therefore, clinical records we saw did not demonstrate care was provided in line with current guidance.

We were not assured that effective systems and processes were in place to ensure staff remained up to date with changes to legislation, evidence-based guidance, and clinical practice. We found no evidence of clinical meetings, clinical supervision, clinical audits or other governance arrangements through which clinical cases, significant findings, updates to guidance, or educational materials were discussed and reviewed. Consequently, the provider could not demonstrate that staff were routinely supported to maintain and develop their clinical knowledge and practice.

The service did not work well across teams and services to support people. They did not share their assessment of people’s needs when moving between different services. We were unable to obtain assurances that appropriate information-sharing arrangements were in place with patients’ General Practitioners (GP) from our review of clinical records.

The provider failed to assure us staff worked together as a team. Staff we spoke to were unable to clearly describe the management structure, identify who held key leadership and governance responsibilities, or explain who they should escalate concerns to. There was also a lack of understanding among staff regarding each other’s roles and scope of practice.

There was no active Registered Manager in place, and staff we spoke to were unable to explain or identify contact details for those responsible in leading the service.

Evidence gathered during the assessment demonstrated the service provided unsafe care and treatment, which did not support patients to achieve healthier lives. The provider was unable to demonstrate that staff supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing effectively. This was not evidenced within clinical records we reviewed, which contained limited information relating to health promotion, self-management support or discussions aimed at helping patients manage their own health and care needs.

Staff did not routinely record how patients’ care and treatment was monitored. It was not clear from patient records how they were monitoring treatments that had been prescribed, as clinical consultations were incomplete or saved in a draft format. For example, there was no documented evidence of physical health monitoring for patients being seen at the online service of ADHDdiagnosis.co.uk.

The provider was unable to provide evidence of clinical audits, quality assurance activities, or quality improvement work across its services. We were not assured quality, safety or effectiveness of care was being routinely monitored or reviewed to identify opportunities for improvement and ensure positive patient outcomes.

The provider submitted an adult consent policy and child consent policy. From our review of clinical records however, we were not assured the provider informed patients about their rights around consent and did not respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.