The Hair Dr, Leeds Private Hospital

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 assessed 6 quality statements from this key question. We looked for evidence that people were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people 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 is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated Good.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

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.

People told us their health and care needs had been understood, and they were actively involved in planning care which met their needs. People provided feedback to the service which described how they had been treated with dignity and respect.

Staff told us people’s procedures and follow up appointments are booked at times which were best for the person.

We observed staff communicating with people in a person-centred way.

We reviewed people’s care notes which described how the service ensured they provided person centred care. The complaints policy described how the service would ensure people were at the centre of the process and how they supported staff with a no blame culture. Incidents recorded all showed a person-centred approach to investigation and support for people and staff.

We reviewed the services admission criteria and saw no evidence that people with additional needs such as dementia or learning disabilities were identified as part of the admission process. There was no reference with the admission criteria regarding mental capacity despite a Mental Capacity Act policy stating robust assessment was undertaken.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us their care and support was co-ordinated, and everyone worked well together within the team and with them.

Staff told us the service delivered and co-ordinated services which considered the needs and preferences of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care.

Staff told us the service was a fee-paying service and did not carry out NHS funded procedures.

Aftercare instructions to people included how to contact the service during the out of hours period and advised, in an emergency to attend the local accident and emergency service. Examples were provided where the clinician was contacted in the out of hours period and advice given.

If people attended another health provider, the service provided them with contact details of the hair surgeon, a summary of the procedure and after care instructions.

The patient information leaflets all provided out of hours emergency contact details.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were provided with clear and transparent information which included contracts and financial charges and credit agreements before consent.

Information was written in a clear to understand manner, and was available in other languages and formats if required.

People were provided with information well in advance of their surgery date.

The Service had in place a Data Protection Registration Certificate and operated in accordance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.

Staff were all trained in information governance and confidentiality.

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 and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they had the opportunity throughout to raise concerns and provide feedback.

The service provided examples of feedback and complaints they had received with evidence of learning and improvements from the complaints. We saw evidence these were discussed at staff meetings.

The service received feedback from many sources including formal post-procedure surveys, internet review platforms, direct testimonials to their web site and follow-up conversations. We were provided with examples of the feedback received which was positive.

The service advised people can share feedback and complain about the service they had received.

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

People attending the clinic had self-referred and were self-funded. People told us they there was not a long wait for consultations or appointments for treatment and dates were arranged in consultation with themselves.

Staff told us people did not wait long to see the clinic’s lead doctor.

Staff and leaders told us they made sure people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The clinic was open from 8.00am – 5.00pm Monday to Friday, however, people were provided with an emergency contact number and aftercare included a WhatsApp contact number. People were contacted the day after their procedure to check how they were.

Leaders said they provided information in different languages as needed, and could use an interpretation service, they ensured people’s dietary needs could be met.

Discharge information was tailored to the individual person which included a summary of the procedure they had undergone, a list of medication given, emergency contact numbers and aftercare instructions which were explained fully by a member of staff.

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.

People who provided feedback were positive about the outcome of their experience and treatment. We did not receive any examples of negative feedback from people who we spoke to about the service.

Staff undertook Equality and Diversity training as part of their yearly training. The staff handbook informed staff that the leaders provided a workplace free from discrimination, harassment, or victimisation.

The service provided written guidance as to how they would support someone with their psychosocial wellbeing. People were asked about their wellbeing as part of pre-assessment. We could see people were scoring severe anxiety as part of the pre-assessment process but could see no evidence of how the service supported the patient.

Post procedure check-ins with the people were undertaken to assess their wellbeing and satisfaction with the procedure. We were given examples where the service had obtained feedback from people, however, we were not provided with individual examples with dates and comments.

The service monitored post-treatment success rates for people through before and after photographs. The service could show positive outcomes for people through written and pictorial evidence.

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

People said they were given information about the treatment offered and other treatments which could be offered to help them to make the right decision to help plan for their future.

Staff provided people with a discharge information for what may happen when they got home.

The consent form included information which told people they may need more than one hair transplant procedure so people were aware they may need more procedures at further expense and the results from one procedure may not be what they were expecting.