My Hair Transplant

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

We rated effective as good.

Staff assessed people’s health needs and worked well together and with service partners for the benefit of people who use the service. People experienced positive outcomes following their care and treatment. Staff provided information around healthier lives and supported people to make informed decisions about their care.

Consent was obtained from people who used the service. However, the consent policy did not always reflect staff practice and some people who used the service told us they would have preferred more time with the surgeon before undergoing surgery.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People using the service reported having an initial consultation with an external hair loss referral agency, followed by a second consultation with the surgeon on the day of surgery.

Staff confirmed this process, noting that initial assessments were typically conducted by an external agency to determine surgical needs, preferences, and eligibility. The surgeon often met people for the first time on the day of the procedure, which increased the risk of treatment being postponed if physical or mental health concerns were identified.

Staff stated that people were routinely reviewed as part of the aftercare process.

The service had policies and guidelines in place to support staff with assessment requirements.

We reviewed care records for 10 people who used the service. These included pre-operative assessments conducted on the day of surgery, covering contact details, clinical and medical history, lifestyle factors, mental health, and before-and-after photographs.

All care records reviewed were complete and up to date.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People who used the service told us they felt their surgical procedure was carried out effectively. They told us staff carried out regular monitoring and observations and that they were provided with aftercare support following discharge from the clinic.

People told us they were given clear advice on what to eat and drink prior to undergoing surgery and were offered beverages and snacks during their procedure.

The staff we spoke with told us they had a good understanding of best practice standards for cosmetic surgery and that they met with other hair transplant surgeons to discuss best practice and evidence-based treatments. However, staff were not members of recognised hair transplant professional bodies, and we did not see evidence they had based their approaches on standards recommended by such organisations. Managers had developed their own inhouse training in follicular unit extraction (FUE) for staff.

People who used the service spoke positively about their aftercare from the team.

We spoke with a trichologist at an external hair loss referral agency, they told us they had a good working relationship with the service and could easily access the surgeon and clinic managers if they required any further advice or information. They told us that they met with the registered manager to provide feedback from people. They gave examples of feedback being shared and changes the service had made.

Managers told us there was effective daily communication between the multidisciplinary team. Staff safety huddles were carried out twice a day to ensure all staff had up-to-date information about risks and concerns.

Staff reported routinely discussing health promotion and lifestyle choices with people using the service during the initial booking and consultation, as well as during aftercare. Advice included alcohol consumption and smoking cessation to support post-operative recovery.

Assessment questionnaires completed by people who used the service incorporated questions about healthy lifestyle habits.

The provider’s online portal also offered information and guidance on healthier living in relation to surgical procedures.

The registered manager stated that the service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to support continuous improvement.

People reported positive outcomes from their hair transplants. We spoke with 2 people during our onsite inspection and a further 5 by telephone after the inspection. People praised the responsive post-surgery communication, including the ability to send photographs for review. One person received additional treatment at no extra cost. Overall, people who used the service expressed satisfaction with their surgical results.

Managers reported that outcomes data included individual surgeon performance, complication rates, and surgical site infections. The service conducted internal audits on people’s satisfaction, procedure success rates, postoperative complications, and reviews of case notes and consent.

A 2024–2025 clinical outcomes audit showed that 97% of people were satisfied with their hair transplant procedure, with 3% reporting complications such as swelling or scarring. A separate feedback survey, completed by 12 people who used the service in the reception area, showed most rated their experience 5 out of 5, though this only represented a small sample of the overall number of people who had undergone treatment at this clinic..

Postoperative complication audits covered conditions such as folliculitis, avascular necrosis (AVN), donor over-harvesting, numbness/paraesthesia, fainting, delayed wound healing, and scarring. Complication rates were low, all below 3.5%, with fainting/feeling unwell being the most common.

Six-monthly audits of surgical site infections were also carried out, with a reported infection rate of 1%.

Following a review of outcomes, the service expanded the donor area used for harvesting, enabling the collection of over 3,000 grafts per procedure, which they reported improved people’s satisfaction rate to 97%.

The service reported that in the 12 months leading up to June 2025, it had carried out 800 follicular unit extraction (FUE) procedures, with a complication rate of 3.13% (against a target of less than 5%) and a revision rate of 3% (against a target of less than 10%). The service typically operated with 2 surgeons handling 4 FUE cases per day.

Clinic managers stated that people received consent forms, which outlined the risks of surgery, after their initial consultation with the referral agency. People who used the service reported reviewing this information in advance via the online portal, which included explanatory videos from the surgeon. However, some said they were shown the video only on the day of surgery and would have preferred more time with the surgeon beforehand.

The provider’s consent policy offered guidance to staff, though some sections referring to the Mental Health Act 1983 and children that were not appropriate or relevant to the service.

We saw consent was clearly documented in care and treatment records. We reviewed 10 consent records, all of which showed written consent with documented risks and benefits. Consent was obtained through a two-stage process: initially during consultation and again on the day of surgery.

Staff demonstrated awareness of assessing people’s mental capacity to consent.

The service conducted six-monthly consent audits by contacting randomly selected people who used the service. Of the 25 people reviewed, all confirmed they had received information and given informed consent.