rtwskin

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as Good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture.

Staff were aware of the service’s visions and values and how they applied to their roles and responsibilities. Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about changes within the service.

The directors were planning to expand the scope of the service to include dental services and had a long-term succession plan in place.

All the staff we spoke with were committed to providing a high-quality service and were proud of the positive feedback received from people.

The service had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

Staff told us leaders in the service were approachable and responded to any concerns raised.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had established Freedom to Speak up arrangements within the service. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns including to external bodies if necessary.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Policies and procedures to promote diversity and equality were in place. There had been no concerns related to discrimination. Adjustments had been made to ensure all staff were valued, for example around working hours.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles and systems of accountability but there were some gaps in good governance. The service provided assurance it was taking action to address these issues immediately following the inspection.

The service had not effectively monitored staff completion of mandatory training, for example, a doctor was not up to date with level 3 training on safeguarding at the time of the inspection. This was completed the day after the inspection. The service confirmed they would monitor completion of updates across the whole staff group in future.

There was ambiguity about the role of an aesthetic practitioner in undertaking minor surgical procedures without supervision. The service told us that this staff member was only carrying out procedures where a registered doctor had already carried out a medical assessment but this was not documented in the records. However, the service was transparent about clinician and practitioner experience, registration and qualifications (for example, with detailed information about this on their website).

Clinical records were secure and updated but did not always include all relevant information about medicines which had been dispensed, for example, a topical skin cream. The service confirmed they would include all prescribing information in the records and they had decided to stop dispensing any medicines.

Leaders and managers supported staff, and all staff we spoke with were clear on their individual roles and responsibilities. Managers met with staff regularly to complete appraisals and performance reviews. Staff could access all required policies and procedures. Managers held meetings with staff, during which they discussed updates and emerging risks. Managers clearly recorded any actions arising from these meetings and ensured they shared these with staff. Staff took confidentiality and information security seriously.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership when appropriate for example, to share relevant information with people’s usual GP (with consent) or in relation to people at risk of abuse.

The service focused on continuous learning and innovation across the organisation. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research in the aesthetic field.

Since our previous inspection, the service had implemented a detailed quality improvement plan to address the concerns we had identified. We saw evidence of improved management of these risks including comprehensive documentation of events, incidents and complaints. We identified some new areas of risk at this inspection (for example, a doctor was not up to date with their safeguarding training). The service provided evidence immediately following the inspection to show it had acted on this feedback.

The service was an accredited service with the Save Face register of practitioners which involved regular safety inspections.

Service development was driven by a focus on improving people’s experience and satisfaction with outcomes. There remained scope to expand the use of clinical audit to monitor treatment outcomes.