• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

CLNQ Deansgate Square

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

11 Owen Street, Manchester, M15 4YB (01565) 362001

Provided and run by:
CLNQ Limited

Assessment report published 30 May 2025

On this page

Effective

Good

8 May 2025

This is the first inspection for CLNQ Deansgate Square since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

We looked for evidence that staff involved people in making decisions about their care and treatment and provided them with advice and support.

The provider carried out a comprehensive assessment of people’s needs to confirm treatment, ensure that procedures would meet their needs and that consent processes were robust. Psychological assessment was an important aspect of each consultation.

Leaders kept themselves informed and up to date with best practice and completed their own research and studies to monitor outcomes in relation to others in the aesthetic specialism.

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.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

CLNQ Deansgate Square made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their physical and mental wellbeing and, communication and social needs.

Feedback from people using the service was positive about the processes in place to assess their need, they felt listened to and that assessments were thorough.

Leaders and staff described action taken including providing sufficient time, so that people could provide the information required to ensure the treatments would meet their needs and expectations.

Standard templates were used to assess needs to ensure all important points were covered.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

CLNQ Deansgate Square planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation.

The provider demonstrated they attended and contributed to aesthetic industry best practice conferences, reviewed industry publications and collaborated with their professional peers, in order to ensure procedures were as effective as possible.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

The service had a small team who worked well together. Staff were aware of how to access assessment information about people. Staff were confident in using the protocols to ensure people received additional information quickly.

There was evidence of close work with a regular pathology laboratory for analysing samples. This ensured results were returned quickly and the patient made aware of the results.

The patient’s GP was also informed, with their agreement, about results when appropriate.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

CLNQ Deansgate Square supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Information available to people who used the service identified how the products and procedures provided could enhance a sense of well-being.

The provider processes, including initial assessments and follow-up information, ensured people understood the full benefits and risks of treatments and procedures in the short, medium and long-term.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve the care provided through requesting feedback and speaking with the patient after their procedure.

The provider shared and compared outcome information with peers in the aesthetic health industry to promote wider learning.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider conducted a comprehensive assessment of people’s needs to confirm appropriate treatment and procedures were agreed. People were also provided with all the information necessary to make an informed consent about their care.

The booking policy also included a cooling-off period to allow people sufficient time to consider their decisions. The provider did not offer a service to people under 18 years old.

The service should consider having processes in place to confirm people receiving care and treatment are over 18 years old.