Sussex Aesthetics

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 safe, protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

This is the first inspection for this clinic 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.

The clinic had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. There were systems to learn and make improvements when things went wrong. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. We reviewed a recent incident which resulted in the clinic sharing the incident and working with the manufacturer of a medical device to ensure lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

There was a system for receiving safety alerts, such as those relating to the use of medicines. The clinical director received the alerts and assessed whether they were relevant to the clinic, the treatments provided and acted upon them when necessary.

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 people moved between different services. Staff worked with other providers to deliver shared care and when patients moved between services. For example, when referrals were made to the consultant dermatologist regarding skin lesions referrals, clinical recommendations and actions were managed in a timely way.

The clinic had a system to retain medical records in line with Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) guidance in the event they were to cease trading.

The clinic worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Safeguarding policies were in place and known to staff, who were appropriately trained in safeguarding procedures. The clinic had systems to share concerns quickly and appropriately. Contact numbers for the local authority safeguarding team were easily accessible. Staff who acted as chaperones were trained for the role and had received a DBS (Disclosure Barring Service) check.

The clinic worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Although the service 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. We also saw staff had access to the Aesthetic Complications Expert (ACE) Group which supported medical practitioners in the management of non-surgical aesthetic complications by providing advice via telephone and email. All treatments that were within scope of regulation were of low risk and patients received full medical assessments to determine they were of sufficient good health to undertake the treatments. We saw the assessment contained sufficient information to determine treatment was safe, including past medical history, current medicines and allergies.

Sussex Aesthetics is located in a converted residential building, all areas of the building used by patients had been renovated and refurbished to a high medical grade specification. Staff detected and controlled potential risks in the environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Appropriate environmental risk assessments were completed and included the risk of surgical plumes (also known as surgical smoke) and the usage and storage of liquid nitrogen (used for cryotherapy). We found liquid nitrogen stored on site met the storage guidelines in accordance with national guidance.

Staff immunisations were in line with UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) guidance.

There was a business continuity plan in place should the service be interrupted for any reason.

The clinic made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

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.

All 3 nurses who provided regulated activities were registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and were 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 clinicians who provided regulated activities had additional dermatology qualifications and specialist training relevant to the treatments they provided. They attended conferences, courses and training to keep up to date with innovations and changes within the sector. The clinical director also met regularly with a network of local peers to share experience and knowledge.

Regulated activities were provided by a small team, they were conscious their work and reviews needed objectivity. As a result, they accessed regular peer support from colleagues within the sector.

Safe recruitment practices were followed.

The clinic 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.

We found all areas of the clinic, including all treatment rooms and patient areas visibly clean and hygienic.

The clinic used a very 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. There were effective systems to manage and respond to safety alerts and medicine recalls. Staff followed established processes to ensure people prescribed medicines with specific risks received recommended monitoring.

Of the 3 nurses, 1 was a qualified independent prescriber and was able to prescribe for conditions and 1 of the other nurses was currently completing their independent prescribing qualification - all regulated activities were delegated by the clinical director within the scope of the nurses practice. Through our discussions there was evidence of actions taken to support good antimicrobial stewardship.