Archived: Lumley Aesthetics LLP

Updated 22 February 2019

We inspected Lumley Aesthetics Clinic on 24 January 2019.

Lumley Aesthetics LLP is a doctor's treatment service which comprises of a single location clinic with one treatment room situated within the home of the provider. The clinic carries out some non-surgical treatments which do not come under the registration of the Health and Social Care Act, but carries out a few treatments for which the clinic is registered.

The clinic is open Monday to Friday 9.30am to 5.30pm and Saturday 9.30 am to 12.00 noon occasionally.

Lumley Aesthetics does not treat patients under the age of 18 years of age.

The clinic does not have disabled access.

The clinic has the following facilities; one private car parking space and public on-street parking, a

waiting room with refreshment facilities, toilet facilities and one private consultation and treatment room.

The inspection was led by a CQC inspector and a Consultant Dermatologist.

We reviewed information from the provider including evidence of staffing levels and training, audit, policies and their statement of purpose.

We interviewed staff, reviewed documents, talked with the provider and examined the facilities including the building. We also asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received 55 comment cards.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we always ask the following five questions:

• Is it safe?
• Is it effective?
• Is it caring?
• Is it responsive to people’s needs?
• Is it well-led?

These questions therefore formed the framework for the areas we looked at during the inspection.

Updated 22 February 2019

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection on 24 January 2019 to ask the service the following key questions; Are services safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Our findings were:

Are services safe?

We found that this service was providing safe care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services effective?

We found that this service was providing effective care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services caring?

We found that this service was providing caring services in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services responsive?

We found that this service was providing responsive care in accordance with the relevant regulations

Are services well-led?

We found that this service was providing well-led care in accordance with the relevant regulations

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it provides. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to particular types of regulated activities and services and these are set out in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Lumley Aesthetics provides a range of non-surgical cosmetic interventions, for example wrinkle reduction injections which are not within CQC scope of registration. Therefore, we did not inspect or report on these services.

The provider is the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

As part of our inspection we also asked for CQC comment cards to be completed by patients prior to our inspection. We received 55 comment cards all of which were positive about the standard of care received. There was praise for the clinical staff, particularly for their diagnostic and listening skills. There was also praise for the reception staff for being caring and attentive.

Our key findings were:

• The care provided was safe. There was a culture of placing safety at the core of activity.
• Systems to support safety within the building were effective and well embedded.
• There was abundant information for patients on how to approach their treatment. This included providing in-house leaflets, as well as standard leaflets, and links to the latest dermatological research. Patients were enabled to be as knowledgeable about their choices as possible.
• There were a range of lasers available allowing patients to be treated at the clinic rather than referring to secondary care.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGPChief Inspector of General Practice