• Doctor
  • Independent doctor

Face Perfect Clinic

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

40 Park Square North, Leeds, LS1 2NP (0113) 457 2805

Provided and run by:
FacePerfect Clinic Limited

Important:

We served a warning notice on FacePerfect Clinic Limited on 9 January 2026 for failing to meet the regulations related to good governance at Face Perfect Clinic.

Assessment report published 18 February 2026

On this page

Responsive

Good

6 February 2026

This is the first assessment for this service since its registration with CQC. This key question has been rated as Good.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Person-centred Care

Score: 2

Staff told us they provided person-centred care through having discussions, offering choice, and by providing patients with the support they needed to understand, for example by providing them with information leaflets.

However, records did not always evidence that patients understood their condition, care and treatment options, nor whether they were provided with information on associated risks and benefits of proposed treatments.

Care provision, Integration and continuity

Score: 2

Patients did not always receive appropriate support and follow-up reviews after treatment. The provider did not work with other teams and services which supported patients using the service. For example, there was no appropriate information sharing or evidence of permission being sought to share information with the patient’s other healthcare providers.

We saw that care provided was flexible and supported choice. For example, we were told that appointment dates and times were flexible if there was capacity and availability.

Providing Information

Score: 2

Feedback from patients indicated that they felt they were provided with enough information which allowed them to make informed decisions regarding their care and treatment.

However, there was a lack of information within clinical records to evidence that patients were provided with clear, accurate and up-to-date information regarding their treatment, including any associated risks.

Staff told us there was access to an interpretation service and that information could be translated, if required, but translated documents were not readily available.

Information about the service, including staff and treatment information, was available to patients on the provider’s website.The location was registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office and staff undertook training on data security.

Listening to and involving people

Score: 3

The provider regularly sought feedback from patients. We were told that patient surveys had been trialled in the past but had not been useful, and that the suggestion box was never used. Instead, patients were encouraged to leave an online review following an appointment. We saw that there were a large number of online reviews, the majority of which were positive; these reviews were unverified.

There was a complaints policy and process in place. There had been 1 formal complaint in the last 12 months. We reviewed this complaint and found there had been a timely investigation and response, and appropriate action taken. The provider told us that the complaints procedure would be added to the website and that going forward any informal complaints or comments from patients would also be recorded for learning.

Equity in access

Score: 3

As an independent health provider, the service had control over the numbers of patients who were able to access the service as they self-referred. The service operated Monday, Friday and Saturday 10am to 4pm, and Tuesday to Thursday 10am to 7pm. Appointments and consultations were carried out face to face, with some review appointments held over the telephone or via video call.

Equity in experiences and outcomes

Score: 3

The service treated patients without discrimination.

The provider told us it made reasonable adjustments where required, and had access to an interpretation service to support effective communication with all patients.

Planning for the future

Score: 3

This quality statement is not relevant for this service and has not been assessed.