Rejuvenate Aesthetics Clinic Ltd

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

Safe – this means 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. The service is no longer in breach of the legal regulations. The service had demonstrated improvements had been made to its clinical supervision process, in particular relating to the prescribing of medicines. The service also made improvements to its overall management of medicines by aligning the documentation of prescribing to national guidance and assessing risks related to the storage of emergency medicines and equipment.

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 a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff were encouraged to raise concerns when things went wrong. They told us incidents, complaints and examples of feedback were shared and discussed during regular governance meetings and daily huddles. The registered manager provided examples of how incidents were investigated and resolved.

There were policies and processes in place to record, investigate and take action from incidents and complaints and guidance was available on sharing outcomes openly in line with the duty of candour. We reviewed 2 incidents which showed investigations were risk assessment rated which detailed outcomes, response timeframes and identified learning. For example, the service had ensured equipment that had failed portable appliance testing had been investigated with the manufacturer, appropriate signage had been placed in the clinic and staff were alerted to the incident. We also reviewed a clinical incident which involved a person with no significant health risks identified prior to treatment who later experienced abdominal pain. The service had investigated the person’s symptoms, care and treatment records and raised the concerns with their NHS GP. After confirmation of diagnosis and stopping treatment, the person was advised of risks of exacerbating their condition. The service had documented the incident and had provided ongoing support for the patient and a formal response in line with the incident policy.

The service ensured information was available on how to complain, this was located in the service’s waiting area and on its website. People were advised on the complaint’s adjudication service bespoke to the provider. We noted the service had no complaints recorded but staff were aware of how to investigate and respond to complaints in line with the service’s policy.

Since the last inspection, the service had implemented a risk register which documented control measures and mitigating actions to clinical services and premises related health and safety risks and business continuity planning.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. There were systems in place for processing information relating to new people as well as care and treatment records shared with the person’s registered GP practice with consent. Referrals and results were managed in a timely way. During our on-site visit, we noted improvements had been made to the documentation of clinical records which included baseline measurements prior and during treatments which were referred to the person’s NHS GP where required. There were pathways to ensure any skin lesions or suspected cancer was appropriately referred to a local dermatologist and the person’s NHS GP for further monitoring.

The service worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There was a designated safeguarding children and adult leads at the service. Systems were in place to appropriately refer people to the local authorities where required. Safeguarding and chaperoning policies were in place and accessible to staff.

A mixture of clinical and non-clinical staff members had chaperone responsibilities as part of their role. Those staff members had completed Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks to ensure they would be appropriate to undertake this role.

Staff were trained to the appropriate safeguarding level relevant to their role and were confident in applying mental capacity assessments. There were safe systems and processes in place to ensure people were supported to attend appointments with their next of kin or advocates if required.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Emergency equipment was available and maintained. Staff could recognise a deteriorating individual and knew of action to take. Clinical staff were trained in basic life support and anaphylaxis and were equipped to deal with pre-hospital immediate care. The service had improved the management of lone working and mitigating actions were recorded in the service’s risk assessment, which was reviewed regularly. We noted the service had monitored intruder alarms implemented within the premises and staff had access to mobile phones to raise concerns. Arrangements were in place with the owner of the building and neighbouring businesses to carry out joint emergency and evacuation planning. The service had ensured emergency procedures displayed in the premises such as evacuation points and location of public defibrillator. Patients who had higher risk health considerations such as new patients (due to unrecorded health information and medical history prior to consultation) were booked into appointments where lone working did not take place.

The service 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 was maintained. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed which complied with standards of safety legislation. The service had effective oversight of actions taken when identified within fire safety and legionnaires risk assessments. The service ensured there were schedules for the calibration of relevant medical equipment and portable appliance testing had been carried out for electrical equipment in the premises. There were suitable arrangements for the storage and replacement of oxygen with correct safety signage in place.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff told us there were opportunities to ask for support, raise concerns and appraisals were carried out annually. We identified improvements had been made in relation to clinical supervision staff who prescribed medicines. There were formal mechanisms to review the care and treatment and prescribing standards of the service through the British Association of Medical Aesthetics. Clinical queries in relation to medicine prescribing and care and treatment planning took place with an external compliance organisation every 6 weeks. For example, in the latest governance meeting minutes in July 2025, we noted there was documented evidence of clinical case reviews and updates to national guidelines in relation to patient prescribing considerations with contraception. We also noted there were reviews of random sample of patient consultations. We found there was a focus on mentorship, continuous professional development (CPD) and evaluation of records to ensure care was in line with evidence-based practice. The service owner had completed additional prescribing CPD certification in May 2025 and was also subject to peer review clinical supervision sessions with other local advanced nurse practitioners as well as professional revalidation with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC).

We found improvements had been made to the management of Human Resource (HR) records particularly in relation to recruitment. All recruitment and HR records were kept in-line with practice policy and Schedule 3 requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We carried out a review of the provider’s recruitment checks in relation to 2 members of staff and all required information was available and up to date.

Staff received a formal induction relevant to their role and responsibilities and were supported through ongoing appraisals and supervisions.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. The service had a designated infection prevention and control lead, and all staff had completed relevant training. Cleaning schedules were in place and followed and risk assessments and audits had been completed, with identified actions taken to mitigate any identified risks. During the on-site visit, we observed suitable arrangements for the storage and the disposal of clinical waste and hand hygiene signage was on display. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was available for staff. The service had retained Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSSH) risk assessments for all of the infection control products stocked.

The service made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Since our last inspection, the service had improved its processes for documenting weight loss treatment. This now included screening criteria, baseline measurements, care planning and safety netting for potential side effects. We reviewed 4 patient records and found people’s care and treatment in relation to prescribing of weight loss medicines was in line with national guidelines.

Staff received regular training, were competency assessed on medicines management, and felt confident managing the storage and recording of medicines. Staff followed protocols to ensure they prescribed all medicines safely, and ensured people received reviews and monitoring.

The service held appropriate emergency equipment and medicines and these were stored securely. The service maintained appropriate fridge temperature records where medicines were being stored. The service also implemented a risk assessment to document proposed remedial actions required should temperatures be outside of safe storage ranges.