Renew Skin & Health Clinic Limited Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – This means we looked for evidence that safety was a priority for everyone, and leaders embedded a culture of openness and collaboration. We checked that people were safe and protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm, neglect, abuse and discrimination.

This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant there were shortfalls in the delivery of safe care and treatment.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, this was because at the time of our visit the service did not have suitable equipment or emergency medicines for children, and not all staff performing procedures were trained in paediatric life support. The service did not always make sure medicines were safe or met people’s needs.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Safe.

The service did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Staff did not always report or investigate safety events.

Please refer to the previous inspection report published June 2025.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Staff made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Patients received a consultation prior to any treatment taking place. At this appointment patients had an assessment of their suitability for treatment. This included taking details of their medicines, their medical history, and their psychological history.

Patients were asked to give their consent to information sharing with their GP. This was so important information could be shared. For example, to share information about a treatment outcome, or to flag significant issues that may have emerged as part of the assessment.

Outcome letters were shared with the GP to describing medications, surgery undertaken, and any advice given following a patient’s assessment or procedure.

The service worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve it. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

All staff received training to level 3 in safeguarding children and level 3 in safeguarding adults. Staff knew how to identify adults at risk of, or suffering, significant harm and what to do it they had a safeguarding concern. No safeguarding referrals had been made in the 12 months before our assessment.

The safeguarding policies contained information about local safeguarding teams. We saw safeguarding flow charts in treatment rooms so staff had easy access to information about what to do if they had a safeguarding concern.

Gillick competence was used to assess the ability of young people to consent to treatment. Gillick competence is concerned with determining a child’s (person aged under 16 years) capacity to consent through assessment of their intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Our review of files found these to be comprehensive, and the service explained risks of procedures. The mental health and wellbeing of children of young people was a priority and was discussed at length with people. Notes taken during assessment discussions reflected conversations held with patients about the effect their condition was having on them and any other areas where support could be offered. Doctors completed depression scale scores and social impact scales. Patients where offered a chaperone for their appointment.

Patients received a consultation prior to any treatment taking place. At this appointment patients had an assessment of their suitability for treatment. This included taking details of their medicines, their medical history, and their psychological history. They were also asked about their allergies. Patients were then advised of the positive and negative consequences of undergoing a procedure and given time to decide if they wanted to have treatment.

Patients, or their parent or carer were asked to give their consent to information sharing with their GP. This was so important information could be shared. For example, to share information about a treatment outcome, or to flag significant issues that may have emerged as part of the assessment.

When necessary, the doctor wrote to the GP to share information about prescribing, surgery, or about the advice given following a patient’s assessment or procedure.

During our inspection we found the service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. This was because at the time of our visit the service did not have surgical gowns for children, or emergency medicine or resuscitation equipment for children, and not all the staff were trained in paediatric life support. Following our inspection the service provided evidence of purchases of equipment and gowns for children. They provided updated training completion certificates for staff and photographic evidence of emergency medicine.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Staff made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The clinic was split over 2 floors. On the ground floor there was a consultancy room that could also be used to provide laser treatments for patients, there was ramp access for wheelchair users to this room. There was a disabled toilet, a waiting area, office, and storerooms. The first floor could only be accessed by a steep set of stairs which meant it was not suitable for wheelchair users. The first floor contained a theatre, a recovery room, a consultancy room, 2 rooms used for laser therapy, and a utility room for decontamination and storage of equipment. Rooms used for laser therapy had ‘laser in use’ signs outside the door that were lit when the laser was being used.

We saw evidence equipment was regularly serviced, all of the equipment in use had an up-to-date service record. Records showed electrical equipment testing had been completed on the portable electrical equipment.

The service had suitable facilities to meet the needs of patients’ families. The waiting room had enough seats for family members to accompany patients.

Staff disposed of clinical waste safely. Clinical waste bins were clearly identified and emptied regularly. Sharps bins were labelled and stored safely.

The provider did not ensure all healthcare staff who worked at the clinic had the qualifications, knowledge, and experience necessary to provide safe care and treatment. Not all the staff performing procedures were trained in paediatric life support (PLS). The service provided evidence that all staff performing procedures had completed their PLS training following our visit.

We reviewed staff files relating to 5 doctors working at the clinic under practising privileges, these files were uptodate and complete.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

Please refer to the previous inspection report published June 2025.

The service did not always make sure medicines were safe met people’s needs.

The provider had a medicines management policy, but it did not reflect the current arrangements for the management of medicines for children and young people. At the time of our inspection there were no emergency medicines for children.

There was a system to ensure patients medicines and past medical history were recorded prior to any treatment. Allergies were clearly documented in all the patient records we looked at.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. At the time of our visit the service could not provide evidence that staff performing procedures had access to Paediatric Emergency Medicine (PEM). Following our inspection the service where able to demonstrate they now had these medicines such adrenaline for severe allergic reactions and resuscitation equipment.

Please refer to the previous inspection report published June 2025.