Renew Skin & Health Clinic Limited Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, and wellbeing with them.

Staff used a standard assessment tool to assess patients’ suitability for treatment. This included an assessment of their current and historic physical and psychological health, medical conditions, medicines prescribed, and allergies.

Prior to, during, and after a surgical procedure staff performed physical health checks including monitoring of blood pressure and heart rate. Anxiety levels were also checked. Staff said they would use relaxation techniques to help reduce a patient’s anxiety if this was high. Patients told us staff had helped reduce their anxiety with distraction techniques, by holding their hands, and talking to them in calm and soft tones.

Staff told us if their assessment of a patient showed they could be treated using a medical treatment rather than surgical intervention they would recommend this course of action.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, internal policies did not consistently reflect up to date guidance, evidence-based good practice and standards.

There was a process to review policies. We looked at the infection control and sharps policy and saw it was a comprehensive policy that conformed to the latest regulations. However, the medicines management policy did not reflect the provider’s current processes for auditing, or for the safe and secure handling of medicines.

The provider was not signed up to receive patient safety alerts, or other important public health messages, other safety critical information and guidance from the Central Alerting System. This meant they were not consistently aware of new information that would support the delivery of evidence-based practice.

There was no evidence that the World Health Organization WHO surgical safety checklist, or a modified version of the checklist, had been introduced. The WHO checklist has an evidence base for reducing surgery related harm. However, the lead doctor was receptive to adding a modified version of the WHO checklist to the surgical treatment pathway paperwork.

We saw staff assessed patients’ psychological health as part of their assessment of suitability for treatment. Psychological assessment identified those who had body dysmorphic disorder, were vulnerable, not acting voluntarily or being coerced into seeking cosmetic surgery. Body dysmorphic disorder is a mental health condition characterised by people spending a lot of time worrying about their appearance, and in some cases seeking out frequent or repetitive cosmetic surgery. Managers told us patients would be referred to their GP if there was evidence of body dysmorphia, and a referral to a safeguarding team would be made if a person was assessed as having been coerced or pressured into seeking treatment.

The service had clear policy for ensuring patients waited a minimum of 14 days from the point of consultation before they could consent to cosmetic surgical procedures in line with national guidance from the Royal College of Surgeons. This was so patients had time to think about the advantages and disadvantages of surgery before they decided if they wanted to go ahead with a procedure.

The service worked well across teams to support patients.

Patients were asked to consent to sharing information with their GP. We looked at 2 patient letters sent from a dermatologist to their GPs regarding the outcome and advice following the patient’s dermatology assessment. The letters contained information from the assessment so the GP had a clear understanding of the patient’s conditions.

The provider worked with other agencies to deliver a range of services. For example, the provider worked with a local NHS trust who provided pathology services for the clinic.

Staff told us they had a monthly team meeting that all substantively employed members of staff attended. The meeting minutes showed they regularly discussed a range of issues including, incidents, equipment, staff training, and emerging risk.

The service always supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to fully maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

We saw evidence in patient files that they had been given advice to support them to lead a healthier lifestyle. For example, we saw notes for a patient with xanthelasma who was given information to prevent further occurrence of the condition. The advice was to lose weight, increase exercise, and stop smoking. Xanthelasma is a yellow growth that appears on the eyelids caused by high cholesterol or other high levels of natural fat in the blood.

Staff told us if they thought a medical treatment was more appropriate than a surgical procedure, for example, for hair loss, they would encourage the patient to start the medical treatment rather than undergo surgery.

The service routinely monitored people's care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Outcomes for patients were positive and consistent and focused on patient satisfaction. A patient satisfaction survey from March 2022 to February 2025 showed all patients who took part in the survey (163 respondents) would highly recommend the service to friends and family.

Staff told us patients were always followed up after a surgical procedure. In some cases this would be over the telephone but in most cases would be a face to face appointment or video consultation. They said patients were asked how well they felt the procedure had gone and if the results met their expectations. All patients were asked to leave an online review of their treatment.

All of the patients we spoke to told us they were pleased with the outcome of their procedure. They also said the post operative follow up exceeded their expectation. As well as face to face appointments they could have unlimited virtual consultations with the lead doctor.

Senior leaders told us they used before and after photos to demonstrate outcomes. They also held regular face to face or virtual follow-ups where they discussed satisfaction with the outcome of the procedure with the patient. We saw evidence in patient files that if outcomes did not meet patient expectations leaders would endeavour to provide further treatment to ensure patients felt the outcome was positive and met their expectations.

We saw evidence that a scalp biopsy was carried out on a patient with alopecia. This was to check if a hair transplant was likely to be successful, and if the outcome was likely to match the patient's expectation.

The service did not submit performance data to the Private Healthcare Information Network (PHIN). The royal college of surgeons recognised routine activity collection for independent providers who deliver cosmetic surgery may require considerable effort to implement and so do not mandate submission of patient outcome data to PHIN.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Patient information was available on the consultation form and in leaflets. It described the treatment they were having including any side effects of the treatment. All of the patients we spoke to said they had received enough information about their procedure to give informed consent.

Adult patients signed to consent to their treatment.

Patients were asked for their consent to share information with their GP.

A member of staff told us if a patient could not read they would not take consent from them. Instead, they would arrange a meeting that included the patient’s next of kin. The next of kin would be asked to sign on the patient's behalf to record their verbal consent. They also told us if a patient lacked capacity to make a decision about undergoing treatment, they would not allow the treatment to go ahead. This was because they did not have the resources to manage this type of situation.