Dr Skin Surgery 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

We looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this registered provider since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty.

People felt supported to raise concerns and felt staff treated them with compassion and understanding.

There was a system for recording and acting on significant events. No serious incidents had occurred since the clinic registered in 2022. We were therefore unable to assess whether the system was effective. However, staff were aware of the system and told us they would have no hesitation in submitting an adverse incident report.

The clinician subscribed and received safety alerts, such as those relating to the use of a medicine or an item of equipment. They assessed whether each alert was relevant to the clinic, the treatments provided and acted upon them when necessary.

There was a system to record and investigate complaints, and when things went wrong, staff apologised and gave people support.

The clinician had a portfolio of other roles within the NHS and dermatology. They told us, this created opportunities to learn from a range of external safety incidents and learning events. Where applicable, any external learning was embedded into the policies and practices at Dr Skin Surgery Ltd.

The clinic worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when patients had a course of treatment and when they moved between different services.

In line with in-house protocols, the clinic did not make referrals. Patients were advised to see their NHS GP if their condition required treatment not provided by the clinic. Whilst the vast majority of tissue samples were tested to be benign (non-cancerous), occasionally some samples were suspicious and tested to be malignant (cancerous). In these scenarios, we saw the clinic wrote to both the patient directly and their registered NHS GP practice advising of their concerns and recommendations to enter the NHS dermatology pathway. There was a failsafe process to ensure any patients acted upon the test results.

The clinic worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what safeguarding meant and staff knew how to share concerns quickly and appropriately.

The clinic had systems to safeguard people from abuse. Staff received regular safeguarding and safety training appropriate to their role. They knew how to identify and report concerns. Staff who acted as chaperones had chaperone awareness training and when chaperones were utilised, this was recorded within the clinical note template. Chaperones received a DBS (Disclosure and Baring Service) check.

Contact numbers for the local authority (Buckinghamshire) safeguarding team were easily accessible within the treatment room and safeguarding policies were in place. On review of the safeguarding policies, neither contained the contact details for the local safeguarding teams. Once highlighted, the clinician acted upon this immediately and updated the policies.

The clinic worked with patients 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.

Dr Skin Surgery Ltd is located in 3 separate GP practices; arrangements were in place for emergency equipment and emergency medicines to be available at each site and maintained.

Although the clinic did not see acutely unwell patients, staff understood their responsibilities to manage emergencies and to recognise those in need of urgent medical attention. Staff had completed a range of training to manage medical emergencies.

All treatments that were within scope of regulation (minor surgical and non-surgical options to resolve skin lesions, lumps, bumps and skin conditions) were of low risk and patients received full medical assessments to determine they were of good health to undertake the treatments. We saw the assessment contained sufficient information to establish treatment was safe, including past medical history, current medicines and allergies.

The clinic worked with the 3 host sites and detected and controlled potential risks in the treatment rooms. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Contracts were in place to ensure the premises were maintained. Health and safety risk assessments and audits had been undertaken and risks identified had been addressed. During our inspection to the Farnham Common site, we spoke with a host site, they confirmed the arrangements and provided evidence how both services worked together and maintained a safe environment. The clinician told us, similar arrangements were in place at the other 2 sites(Chesham and Beaconsfield).

The clinic used liquid nitrogen for cryotherapy. Cryotherapy is a treatment that involves freezing or near-freezing temperatures via the use of liquid nitrogen. We found liquid nitrogen stored on site met the storage guidelines in accordance with national guidance. (Liquid nitrogen is a cryogenic liquid and is the liquified form of nitrogen gas at atmospheric pressure and sub-zero temperature, which is used to treat some skin lesions by freezing them).

There was a business continuity plan in place which was monitored and reviewed.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together as a small team to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. The clinic contracted staff to carry out regulated activities without employing them.

We found training was up to date, learning needs and development of staff was managed appropriately, and staff were working within their agreed areas of competence.

The clinician was registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) and was up to date with revalidation. This meant they met regulatory standards and were subject to revalidation of their registration to ensure the delivery of safe and effective care and treatment to patients.

The clinician who provided regulated activities was a practicing GP, an associate specialist in dermatology and had additional qualifications in dermatology including membership with the Primary Care Dermatology Society. The clinician told us, their portfolio of roles in both dermatology and general practice enabled them to provide comprehensive care and treatment to his patients.

Safe recruitment practices were followed. During the inspection, it was highlighted, if the clinic was to continue to grow and expand, in terms of staff size, the provider would need to review and strengthen their existing recruitment processes and policies.

The clinic worked with the 3 host sites and assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. Risk assessments and audits were completed, and actions taken to mitigate risks.

Our inspection included a site visit to 1 of the host sites (Farnham Common), we reviewed the most recent infection control audit completed in July 2026, the Legionella risk assessment completed in May 2026 and the waste management audit completed in August 2026.

We found the environment to be clean and appropriate for the minor surgery activities undertaken.

Surgical isolation mats and single use medical packs were used in all treatments to minimise the risk of cross infections. Only single use sterile equipment was used which we saw was all in date and stored correctly.

The clinic used a small breadth of medicines, of the medicines used, we saw they met patient’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff involved people in reviews of their medicines and helped them understand how to manage their medicines safely. Staff kept detailed records of medicines in patient clinical records and for stock or audit purposes.

The clinician advised following feedback from patients, standby antibiotics were sometimes prescribed and described the safeguards used to support antibiotic stewardship (antibiotic stewardship is an approach to monitor the use of antibiotics to preserve their future effectiveness).