The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Archived: Lumley Aesthetics LLP

5 Pound Lane, Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 3TB 0800 316 2627

Provided and run by:
Lumley Aesthetics LLP

All Inspections

24 January 2019

During a routine inspection

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

2 September 2013

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we spoke with four patients. Patients spoke positively about the practice. One patient said "I have been coming here for quite a few years now; she is absolutely super'.

People told us "We always have a really good discussion between us before I start anything to make sure it's absolutely the right thing for me' and 'Yes, there is a lot of detail at the beginning. She is very professional'. We also saw that the clinic had leaflets that patients could take away and read in their own time.

We saw documents which confirmed that the clinic aesthetician held up to date core continuous professional development certificates relevant to the service. We also saw documents which confirmed that the provider held checks with Criminal Record Bureau (CRB).

We spoke with the registered manager who was responsible for decontamination and they explained the procedure for the decontamination of instruments and the surgery environment. The description for the decontamination processes was explained to us and was in line with the Department of Health requirements.

Patients were regularly asked for their views about their care and treatment. We saw that the service carried out yearly patient satisfaction surveys and that these were reviewed and any necessary actions identified and implemented. Comments included 'The practice itself is always kept to the highest standards'.

26 March 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection, there were no clients attending the clinic, however we were able to speak to people on the telephone. We saw positive feedback from patients and comments included:

"Absolutely excellent"

"She listens and provides the very best care.'

"Couldn't praise her more highly."

"Don't push you into anything."

Everyone we spoke with said they would feel confident to raise an issue if needed and they would know how to raise a concern.

Patient's consent was gained and people were happy that they had been given a choice of options with clear explanations of both treatment and costs.

The clinic room we looked at on the day of the visit was of a suitable size and was clean and well maintained. The room was fully equipped and staff carried out cleaning procedures in between each patient, thus minimising the risk of cross

infection.

We found that relevant checks had been carried on staff working in the clinic.

The practice had systems in place to maintain, and monitor the care and safety of people using the service.

16 June 2011

During a routine inspection

We did not speak directly to anyone who had used the service, but obtained peoples' views from reading survey results.

Recent survey responses included that someone had had 'no bruising and was very happy with the results'; another person said 'it was a perfect service, thank you'; and a third person said that they were 'glad that they had had the treatment'.