Pharma Aesthetics

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 the service met people’s needs, and that staff treated people equally and without discrimination.

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.

From our review of clinical records, we were not assured that patients were provide with appropriate information on associated risk and benefits of proposed treatments. Clinical records failed to indicate patients had been supported to understand their condition, care and treatment options, nor whether they were provided with information on associated risks and benefits of proposed treatments.

Patients did not always receive appropriate support and follow-up reviews after treatment. The provider did not work effectively with other teams and services which supported patients using the service. For example, there was no appropriate information sharing or evidence of permission being sought to share information with the patients’ other healthcare providers.

Our review of clinical records showed there was a lack of information to evidence that patients were provided with clear, accurate and up-to-date information regarding their treatment, including any associated risks.

Information about the service was available to patients on the provider’s websites.

The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas online, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We observed a complaint poster displayed in the reception area. However, there was no evidence of a complaints log or any system used to record and monitor complaints. A complaints policy was in place, however, the policy consistently referred to the CQC Registered Manager holding overall responsibility but at the time of the assessment, there was no Registered Manager in place.

There was no record of complaints, responses or meetings to discuss complaints. Therefore, we could not be assured complaints were being recorded, processed, investigated or discussed internally for learning and improvement.

Regulated activities at Pharma Aesthetics were not taking place so appointments and follow-up appointments could not be booked. However, services at Manchester Dermatology clinic and online services at ADHDdiagnosis.co.uk were taking place at the time of the assessment.

Policies were in place in relation to equality, diversity and human rights which addressed discrimination, staff training and the Accessible Information Standard. However, we could not be assured effective measures to promote equality and diversity were in place due to a lack of evidence in detail in clinical records.

From our review of staff training records, not all staff had completed equality and diversity training.

From our review of clinical records, we were not assured patients who accessed the service for long-term treatment options were cared for appropriately. Evidence gathered during the assessment demonstrated that the service provided unsafe care and treatment, which did not support planning for the patient’s future.