My Hair Transplant

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

We rated responsive as good.

The service planned care and treatment to meet people’s needs. People could access the service when they needed it, in a way that promoted equality and protected their rights.

However, staff were not always proactive in obtaining and reviewing people’s feedback, with response rates remaining low.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us people's needs and preferences were assessed as part of the initial consultation. However most people's initial assessment was carried out by an external hair loss clinic. This meant that the service discussed people's wishes and planned their surgical procedure on the morning of their hair transplant.

Clinic managers told us they provided individual guidance and aftercare support for people with pre-existing health conditions such as diabetes or asthma and those with smoking or alcohol consumption lifestyles because this impacted the post-operative recovery process.

Managers told us that people could get help from interpreters when needed. They gave a recent example where information had been transcribed into the person's first language. People were given a choice of food and drink to meet their cultural and religious preferences. A sandwich menu sheet located at the reception desk, specifically asked people if they had any special dietary requirements.

We observed that people used the smartphone app to contact the service with individual requests and queries, which were responded to promptly.

People told us the technicians were caring and supportive. However, some told us that they were given a video to watch prior to surgery with all the information. They felt they would have preferred more 1-1 time with the surgeon.

Staff reported receiving the necessary information to plan people’s care and treatment during the initial consultation process.

People were given the option of follow-up reviews either in person or remotely, which was beneficial for those living outside the local area. Clinic managers had electronic access to people’s records and were responsible for post-operative follow-up calls. Any concerns were escalated to the surgeon.

People received clear aftercare instructions and contact details upon discharge. They could reach out to the service for advice or if complications arose, with clinic managers coordinating any necessary follow-up with the surgeons.

We spoke with a person who had returned for additional treatment and reported being satisfied with the care received on both occasions.

The service had a service level agreement with a co-located organisation that acted as a referrer.

The service provided detailed, in-house information to people and ensured they were well informed about their care and treatment. Staff reported conducting regular reviews and offering relevant guidance.

Staff had received training in information security and confidentiality and could easily access electronic care records, policies, and role-specific guidance. Records were secure and password-protected, and managers told us that no data breaches had occurred in the past 12 months.

Information leaflets were available in different languages, and managers gave an example of translating materials to support a non-English-speaking person. People could also access information via the provider’s portal and social media platforms.

The service had recently introduced in-person education workshops to enhance people’s engagement and understanding of post-operative care. Managers were also exploring digital webinars, expanded portal content, and targeted follow-up calls.

However, we found inaccurate information which referred to the service’s surgeons on an external hair loss referral website. The registered manager told us they were unaware of this. Some people reported they would have preferred more time with the surgeon on the day of surgery, rather than being given a tablet to watch information about the procedure.

Staff reported that people typically attended on the day of surgery and were shown a video explaining the procedure. Some staff noted that people assumed they would only receive 1 or 2 pain relief injections, requiring staff to clarify the actual process on the day. However, this level of detail should have been clearly communicated to people in advance, to support informed decision-making prior to attending for surgery.

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

In March and April 2025, the CQC received negative feedback via the "Share Your Experience" webform from individuals who had used the service. Both raised concerns regarding infection prevention and control.

The complaints policy guided staff on handling complaints, including how to escalate concerns within the organisation.

The service reported 5 complaints in the 12 months prior to our inspection. Managers told us these all related to dissatisfaction with surgical outcomes. Managers told us 4 were resolved promptly, while one remained ongoing at the time of inspection.

The service had introduced an effective process for obtaining feedback about people’s experiences. Managers reviewed people’s feedback received from the online portal, the feedback forms in reception and from online review sites as part of the 6 monthly managers meeting. They also reviewed any whistleblowing concerns.

People knew how to raise concerns. The people we spoke with told us they would contact the service directly. They had contact details as part of their post operative information. People were provided with feedback forms they could complete prior to leaving the service.

Information on how to raise complaints was given to each person as part of their initial booking / consultation. However, the service did not clearly display information about how to raise a concern in the clinic areas. We did not see any posters or information leaflets on display. The service did not have its own website and the referring company’s website made no reference on how to make a complaint.

We reviewed the service’s post-action feedback in response to people’s comments. This showed people had requested more frequent post-surgery phone calls, which the service acted on by introducing additional calls at 48 hours, 7 days, and 2 weeks post-procedure. People’s feedback was positive; however, the sample size was small, with only 12 responses out of approximately 800 FUE service users seen annually.

The service had an involvement policy and procedure to ensure people were included in treatment decisions and their views were considered. People were encouraged to provide feedback through informal discussions with staff, suggestion boxes, the online portal, and by completing a feedback questionnaire available in the clinic room.

The service conducted post-operative courtesy calls for all people who used the service, which included questions on satisfaction and service rating. However, there was no evidence that this feedback was formally collated or reviewed, despite the potential for higher response rates compared to paper questionnaires completed in the waiting area. This represented a missed opportunity to capture broader insights into people’s satisfaction and areas for improvement.

Managers reported having sufficient capacity to meet people’s needs and deliver timely care. They monitored cancellations and followed up people who did not attend appointments. In the past year, there were 127 cancellations: 71 due to medical reasons, 45 due to people’s choice, and 14 relating to administrative or other causes.

People who used the service accessed the service directly or through external referral agencies, which conducted initial consultations. The service provided an information pack including consent forms, health questionnaires, and access to the online portal. Surgeons reviewed any medical concerns remotely or in person, and all people were reassessed and re-consented on the day of surgery. The average time from booking to surgery was 6–8 weeks, respecting the required 14-day cooling-off period.

The service excluded people with complex health conditions or those lacking capacity. Managers demonstrated understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. For people with psychological or health concerns, GPs were contacted to confirm fitness for surgery. We reviewed 3 such cases where surgery was appropriately rescheduled following contact with other professionals. .

The clinic manager maintained oversight of follow-ups, and we reviewed 5 examples that were appropriately managed. People who used the service had access to the online portal and a smartphone app, which enabled direct contact with the clinic. We observed prompt responses to people’s queries by clinic managers and surgeons.

Staff reported treating people equally and without discrimination and gave several examples of how they respected the individual needs or preferences of people with protected characteristics. The service had an equality and diversity policy outlining its commitment to equal opportunities and non-discriminatory practices. Its inclusion criteria excluded individuals with complex health conditions or those lacking capacity to consent.

Staff reported that care and treatment plans, including discharge arrangements, were discussed and planned prior to surgery. Discharge records confirmed that aftercare and post-operative recovery advice was provided.