Renew Skin & Health Clinic Limited Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff told us they discussed all the treatment options available to patients and recommended the least invasive treatment. For example, if a problem could be treated with medicine, they would recommend this over a surgical intervention. We saw evidence that if a patient’s condition had been caused through lifestyle, staff would give the patient information to help them live a healthier lifestyle and stop a recurrence of the condition.

The patients we spoke to told us they were given information about alternative treatment options. For example, patients with aesthetic conditions that did not cause a risk to their health were made aware that one of the alternatives to surgery was to do nothing.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. This meant care was flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Managers told us that they carried out some minor surgical procedures that had once been performed by the NHS, but were no longer offered, but may impact on a person’s self-confidence. For example, the removal of lipomas. Lipomas are soft, fatty lumps that grow under the skin.

All of the patients we spoke to had undergone minor surgery. They told us they either could not get their condition treated through the NHS, or there would have been a long wait for NHS treatment.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information but validated written information was only available for patient’s whose first language was English.

Patient information was available on the consultation form for patients. This described the condition they were being treated for, and the treatment they were having including any side effects of the treatment.

All of the patients we spoke with said they had been given enough information about their procedure. The patient survey from March 2022 to February 2025 showed 100% of respondents felt they were given enough information about their procedure.

The provider used leaflets to give to patients however these were only readily available for patients whose first language was English. Staff told us if a patient wanted a leaflet in a different language they would use an online translation application to produce a copy of the leaflet for them. However, the provider did not have any way of knowing what the online application was producing, so they could not be certain patients were being given an exact translation of the information.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care.

We saw a compliments and concerns box in the reception area.

A member of staff told us, “If people wanted to make a complaint I would help them write it, and I would take the complaint to [name].”

Patients were encouraged to leave an online review about the service. The online platform gave a star mark out of 5 based on patient feedback. At the time of our assessment the mark for the clinic was 4.9 based on 586 reviews. The provider also conducted a patient satisfaction survey. The latest survey, which was carried out between March 2022 and February 2025, had 173 respondents. It showed 86.4% of people rated the service 5 out of 5, and 13.6% rated the service 4 out of 5. All of the respondents said they were treated in a clean and safe environment. The survey also showed that all the respondents were satisfied with the treatment they received and had been given enough information about their treatment and their aftercare.

The provider had a complaints process, there were 2 parts to the process. The first part was about complaints relating to the clinic and the second part related to complaints about the substantively employed (lead) doctor. The policy clearly outlined the process that patients needed to follow to make a complaint. The service had not received any complaints in the 12 months before our assessment of the service. People were encouraged to leave a review online.

Staff told us they how they gave patients information to help them make decisions about their treatment. For example, if a patient had 1 large mole and several smaller moles nearby and was requesting the removal of all the moles, staff would talk to them about what it would mean if only the large mole was removed. To help them understand a less invasive procedure could still help them to achieve the aesthetic they were looking for. Staff also said they talked to patients who wanted hair transplant surgery about treatment with medicines if this was something that could help restore hair growth for that person.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it.

The clinic was open from 10am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and on Saturday for hair transplant patients only. However, virtual aftercare calls and some face-to-face aftercare appointments were available 7 days a week.

All the patients attending the clinic had self-referred and were paying their own fees. Patients did not have to wait long for consultations or appointments for treatment. Staff told us patients typically did not have to wait more than a couple of days to see the clinic’s lead doctor. Patients wanting to see doctors working under practising privileges sometimes had longer waits as the doctors were substantively employed elsewhere and only worked at the clinic on occasion.

The patient satisfaction survey from March 2022 to February 2025, showed that 99% of people had been able to speak to a doctor about their presenting concern in less than 2 hours after contacting the service. Most people (81.5%) had been able to speak to a doctor within 30 minutes of contacting the service, 12.7% of people had been able to speak to a doctor in between 30 minutes and one hour.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Managers told us they saw the service as an alternative to the NHS treatment for people who did not want to wait a long time for treatment and for some treatments no longer available on the NHS. They said they understood most people were likely to be experiencing financial hardship in the current economic climate and so they priced their treatments competitively to help those more likely to experience inequality due to a low income.

Managers told us that they had not received requests for surgical treatment from people whose first language was not English. They said if that event occurred, they would arrange a consultation using a translator.

The provider did not have any resources to help people with sight or hearing difficulties access treatment.

The design and layout of the premises meant treatment could not always be accessed by wheelchair users. This was because surgery was performed on the first floor which could only be accessed by a steep staircase.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

People were given time to reflect on the information they had been given about the surgical procedures offered at the clinic. In line with national guidance from the Royal College of Surgeons people had to wait for 14 days from the point of consultation before they could consent to cosmetic surgical procedures. This was to allow time them to think about the advantages and disadvantages of surgery before they decided if they wanted to go ahead with a procedure.